Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Ozark on June 12, 2007, 11:46:11 AM
-
Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism !
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64 (ftp://http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64)
If the link doesn't work, just copy and paste :
-
Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism !
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64 (ftp://http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64)
If the link doesn't work, just copy and paste :
The Liberals on here are awfully quiet :-\
-
Not to be condescending but you anti-Gore guys make this too easy. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that somewhere in your recognition you know Gore has been right a hell of a lot more times than he's been wrong and that just upsets you b/c you're team players for Bush & co. So we have to look at 15 year old speeches divorced from the realities of today. What crap.
The speech was made 15 years ago when the world was a different place.
Gore, in the speech, accused Reaga/Bush of ignoring the dangers Hussein presented while funding Iraqi rearmament. http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/gore_speech_9-29-92.html
Gore's not saying that the US should have attacked Iraq for its terrorist ties the way Bush did 11 years later. He's saying the Reagan/Bush administration was out of its fucking mind for propping up and arming Hussein and then attacking him b/c "he's worse than Hitler--Hitler revisited" and then ultimately leaving him in power. A futile exploit.
I suggest you people actually read the speech before drawing your conclusions.
-
THERE WERE HANGING CHAD BY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!
-
It does not matter it it was 100 years ago,
Hillary said the same thing in 2002. and that is not 15 years ago...... :-)
But don't feel too bad Libs......... He still invented the Internet :-))))
-
It does not matter it it was 100 years ago,
Hillary said the same thing in 2002. and that is not 15 years ago...... :-)
But don't feel too bad Libs......... He still invented the Internet :-))))
Invented the internet....oh my, that knee-slapper still plays amongst the right wing rank & file.
Hillary said what in 2002?
It's a pity that Bush couldn't take defeat like a man back in 2000. America would not be suffering as it is now with Team Bush at the helm.
-
Invented the internet....oh my, that knee-slapper still plays amongst the right wing rank & file.
Hillary said what in 2002?
It's a pity that Bush couldn't take defeat like a man back in 2000. America would not be suffering as it is now with Team Bush at the helm.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
-
Need more ?
Here is Hillary in 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8)
-
Need more ?
Here is Hillary in 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8)
I'm not going to plow through speeches you post. Why not just answer my question?
Anyways, post all the opinions you want--Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry--b/c they are all irrlevant to the findings of the Weapons Inspectors on the ground in Iraq.
See if he would have listened to Hans Blix instead of having his hit-team undermine the man--"Inspector Clouseau", president Bush would not have broken the law by ordering the Iraq invasion.
-
Just as I thought,
It is not relevent to a Lib that his fellows Libs supported the War in Iraq , who all had the same World Intel ( including Intel from France, Israel, and Russia ) saying Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction. and is supporting terrorist.
So you bash Bush, yet dont say a word against Hillary, and yet you can watch her video on youtube I posted, with a straight face ?
(including Hillary Clinton, how much more relevent can you get ? she is the front runner for the Libs )
You Libs are Hilarious, ;D
-
Just as I thought,
It is not relevent to a Lib that his fellows Libs supported the War in Iraq , who all had the same World Intel ( including Intel from France, Israel, and Russia ) saying Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction. and is supporting terrorist.
So you bash Bush, yet dont say a word against Hillary, and yet you can watch her video on youtube I posted, with a straight face ?
(including Hillary Clinton, how much more relevent can you get ? she is the front runner for the Libs )
You Libs are Hilarious, ;D
And you sir are confused and don't know what you are talking about.
Who cares what anyone but the Inspectors thought about WMDs in Iraq?
For god's sake, they were actually in Iraq looking for the WMDs.
Was Clinton, Kerry or Gore in Iraq looking for WMDs? No. Their opinion is irrelevant to the topic.
_________________
And as for your contention that "they all had the same World Intel"...Nonsense.
Germany, Israel, France, Great Britain, and Russia noted only that Iraq failed to account for its past proscribed weapons programs meaning that more weapons could exist.
I won't even broach the Office of Special Plans and the cherry picked "intelligence" proffered by the Bush administration in the run up to the illegal invasion.
-
again with the illiegal invasion crap....what was illiegal..dumb sure..but everybody saw this guy a as threat..to us or more importnatly to his own people.
-
Decker, a serious question. Do you feel our country is best protected with a Liberal in office, if yes, then why?
-
again with the illiegal invasion crap....what was illiegal..dumb sure..but everybody saw this guy a as threat..to us or more importnatly to his own people.
How can he be a threat to us with no WMDs?
-
We didnt know it..Saddam waited way to long to allow folks in....I'm reading about it now. He thought we'd never invade...I think if he did he would have allowed us in to do inspections. His Generals all knew we were coming but nobody reported bad news to Saddam so there u go.
-
Decker, a serious question. Do you feel our country is best protected with a Liberal in office, if yes, then why?
Go to the original Liberal:
Franklin Roosevelt. The man was so liberal that he was considered a traitor to his class of people.
He not only pulled the country out of the depression, but orchestrated the US's successful war against the axis powers in WWII.
Why do you think a conservative would better protect the US?
I mean the US was attacked on Bush's watch, he let Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora, he let Afghanistan become a drug capital again, and he's completely botched Iraq, so I don't see any positives coming out of the conservative camp.
-
We didnt know it..Saddam waited way to long to allow folks in....I'm reading about it now. He thought we'd never invade...I think if he did he would have allowed us in to do inspections. His Generals all knew we were coming but nobody reported bad news to Saddam so there u go.
Hussein did allow the inspectors in Iraq. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html
November 18, 2002, the inspectors were let into Iraq and resumed rigorous inspections.
The inspectors were turning up no WMDs. March 20th 2003, Bush orders the attack of Iraq even though no WMDs are found.
-
As late as December 2002 the republican guard had been ordered to screw with the inspections and make life as hard as possible for them. Soon after Saddam changed his mind..it was too late..he gave the impression that he had something to hide..further cementing the idea, among intel circles, that he had something to hide.
-
As late as December 2002 the republican guard had been ordered to screw with the inspections and make life as hard as possible for them. Soon after Saddam changed his mind..it was too late..he gave the impression that he had something to hide..further cementing the idea, among intel circles, that he had something to hide.
That runs counter to the findings of the inspectors.
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in January 2003 that "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect" and Iraq had "cooperated rather well" in that regard, although "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament." http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
-
I reading right from a report prepared by Rand and written in cooperation with Irtaqi Generals including those who were ordered by Saddam to meddle with the inspectors.
-
I reading right from a report prepared by Rand and written in cooperation with Irtaqi Generals including those who were ordered by Saddam to meddle with the inspectors.
And I am giving you the words of the inspectors themselves.
Would you please show me the report?
-
I don't trust the UN..they want to avoid war at all costs which in turn generally leads to some humanitarian crisis we have to pay for in the future.
Anyway I get all this stuff free...plus I see stuff u mere mortals don't ;D..this u can buy.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780833040169
-
I don't trust the UN..they want to avoid war at all costs which in turn generally leads to some humanitarian crisis we have to pay for in the future.
Anyway I get all this stuff free...plus I see stuff u mere mortals don't ;D..this u can buy.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780833040169
hahahaa.....You know that thing you got with seeing things others can't? I got the same power only with smell.
Here's a list of things related to the topic. It might be worth a look. http://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/h/hosmer_stephen.html
-
I was hoping this thing might be there as well....I guess he's publishing it as a book. Its not really set up like that. Just a bunch of topics with supporting paragraphs and then an extensive bibliography
-
Go to the original Liberal:
Franklin Roosevelt. The man was so liberal that he was considered a traitor to his class of people.
He not only pulled the country out of the depression, but orchestrated the US's successful war against the axis powers in WWII.
Why do you think a conservative would better protect the US?
I mean the US was attacked on Bush's watch, he let Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora, he let Afghanistan become a drug capital again, and he's completely botched Iraq, so I don't see any positives coming out of the conservative camp.
1. This isn't even remotly in the realm of a conventional war, so that comparison cannot be made. When will people realize this? Beside, it was obvious that Roosevelt wasn't a pacifist.
2. You didn't answer my question.
-
1. This isn't even remotly in the realm of a conventional war, so that comparison cannot be made. When will people realize this? Beside, it was obvious that Roosevelt wasn't a pacifist.
2. You didn't answer my question.
I'd prefer a Traditional Conservative (Non neocon), I have a question for you.
In your opinion is Bush a Traditional Conservative?
-
OH HELL NO..he's not even a republican..he's puppet.
-
1. This isn't even remotly in the realm of a conventional war, so that comparison cannot be made. When will people realize this? Beside, it was obvious that Roosevelt wasn't a pacifist.
2. You didn't answer my question.
What does pacifism have to do with a liberal president?
It would seem that you are confusing two different concepts.
You say this isn't "conventional warfare so a comparison cannot be made"? Nonsense. Leadership and ability will always shine through. That's why Bush is such a failure and FDR was such a success in their handling of the respective military conflicts.
There is no war on terror in Iraq. Does that help? The US attacked Iraq. Iraqis are fighting back. That's not a war. That's a mafia hit.
Let's get a little closer to concrete reality and away from speculation about a nameless liberal president and how he/she would handle the current military conflict.
It was Bush that created the Iraq quagmire. He's mismanaged it to the tune of Tens of thousands of people dead and billions of dollars wasted and there is no end or victory in sight.
We know that as a fact.
Just what exactly are you arguing on this topic?
-
"Lib" is used as a pejorative by neocons.
It's a simplistic way to view the world
Everything "Lib" is bad - that goes without saying
-
Yeah it is..libs are a cancer which needs to be crushed..the neocons will fade after 8 years of proof that their world view is to extreme.
-
What does pacifism have to do with a liberal president?
With the protection of our country, it has EVERYTHING to do with it, simply put, Libs want to cut and run, give drivers licenses' to illegals (no questions asked), threaten to cut off funds in the middle of a war, "talk" to the enemy as if they can be reasoned with after blowing up two of our towers and murdering over 3000 innocent people, "talk" to that Iranian midget while he's giving arms and supplies to the insurgents to kill OUR troops, dude, I can go on for days with these anologies.
It would seem that you are confusing two different concepts.
You say this isn't "conventional warfare so a comparison cannot be made"? Nonsense. Leadership and ability will always shine through. That's why Bush is such a failure and FDR was such a success in their handling of the respective military conflicts.
Nonsense????? are you freaking serious?? In war there are rules of engagment, these cowards play by no rules, they use women and children to do their dirty work, you don't who the enemy is......is it a man, women or child?
There is no war on terror in Iraq. Does that help? The US attacked Iraq. Iraqis are fighting back. That's not a war. That's a mafia hit.
There is no war on terror?? Sorry, but you've been clearly brainwashed and that naive statement pisses me off more than anything, it's already been proven that Iraq was giving safe haven for al quada and proving training camps just outside of Baghdad, Bush made it clear in a speech right after 9/11 that we would go after anyone that had anything to do with terrorism and that went for harboring the terrorists, Huissan clearly did that!!
Let's get a little closer to concrete reality and away from speculation about a nameless liberal president and how he/she would handle the current military conflict.
It was Bush that created the Iraq quagmire. He's mismanaged it to the tune of Tens of thousands of people dead and billions of dollars wasted and there is no end or victory in sight.
We know that as a fact.
Just what exactly are you arguing on this topic?
This post alone proves to me that most Liberals are terrorist sympathizers and have no reguard for the protection of the country...and just to make it clear........I meant OUR country!!
-
This post alone proves to me that most Liberals are terrorist sympathizers and have no reguard for the protection of the country...and just to make it clear........I meant OUR country!!
Not to be insulting but where are you pulling this idea that ‘liberal’ = ‘pacifist’. I have an idea but I want to hear it from you. As for your other points: The Iraq war has little to do with battling terrorism effectively—since the war's inception, worldwide terrorism has grown exponentially. Unless Bush is using reverse psychology for battling terrorism.
Score 1 for the liberals.
Before going off on a tirade over soft treatment of illegals, I suggest you look at Pres. Bush’s plan for granting all illegals in this country AMNESTY.
If the Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, we can do it with anyone. We’ve negotiated w/ Iran before and we can do it again. Boy, somebody threatens violence to our troops and you practically piss your pants. See, this is where calm, cool and competent people take over (or should take over)….Frankly Bush’s effort to scare the shit out of the American public in the run up to the illegal invasion still pisses me off.
You were offering examples and not analogies.
The use of unconventional tactics by the enemy only underscores the brutal folly of the US using military troops to achieve what is and always has been a non-military problem. Thank you for making my point.
There is no war on terror in Iraq. Al Qaeda was never in league with Hussein in Iraq. There are countless resources that verify that. Just b/c you wish it to be doesn't make it so.
Bush wants to go after terrorism all over the world. Well I want everyone to have $1000 in their pockets and smiles on their faces. IF you want to fall for such bullshit nonsensical ravings, go ahead. That's like wiping evil off the face of the earth. That's for children.
If you're serious about going after all countries that have supported terrorists, here's a partial list:
The USA,
Israel
Palestine,
Viet Nam,
China,
Iran,
Sudan,
Syria,
Nicaragua,
North Korea,
Libya,
Pakistan,
India,
East Timor,
Egypt,
any of the "stans" really
You get the idea don't you?
The Iraq fiasco is fueling the spread of terrorism not reducing it. Show me I'm wrong and I'll admit it.
-
With the protection of our country, it has EVERYTHING to do with it, simply put, Libs want to cut and run, give drivers licenses' to illegals (no questions asked), threaten to cut off funds in the middle of a war, "talk" to the enemy as if they can be reasoned with after blowing up two of our towers and murdering over 3000 innocent people, "talk" to that Iranian midget while he's giving arms and supplies to the insurgents to kill OUR troops, dude, I can go on for days with these anologies.
Kind of like when a certain presidential grandfather funded the nazi's in their war machine against the allies?
Or how about when a certain ex president negotiated with the "enemy" to keep his nation's citizens hostages until such time that an inaugural ceremony could occur, ...while at the same time supplying arms and supplies in opposition to an international embargo, knowing these weapons would be used to kill their allies, ...and the proceeds from which would be used to finance terrorist groups in other parts of the world.
Nonsense? ??? ? are you freaking serious?? In war there are rules of engagment, these cowards play by no rules, they use women and children to do their dirty work, you don't who the enemy is......is it a man, women or child?
It is all of the above, ...but more specifically, it is the ignorant asses who through lies, spread paranoia, fear, and hatred, among the masses, to keep everybody "terrorized", ...and use those very same lies as justification to invoke actions to annihilate non-existent threats, ...and in the process create them. Got a mirror handy?
There is no war on terror?? Sorry, but you've been clearly brainwashed and that naive statement pisses me off more than anything, it's already been proven that Iraq was giving safe haven for al quada and proving training camps just outside of Baghdad, Bush made it clear in a speech right after 9/11 that we would go after anyone that had anything to do with terrorism and that went for harboring the terrorists, Huissan clearly did that!!
Hussain above all else wanted to stay in power. He was many things, and among those, was smart enough to know that opening his country to terrorists was a threat to his absolute rule, ...not because the US would oppose it, but because first and foremost it undermined the authority he would have in his own nation. This was someting he avoided. The evidence is clear, SH kept the terrorists out of Iraq. The areas he could not police however, were in the US imposed no-fly Kurdish regions. Terrorism that flourished in Iraq prior to the US led invasion, did so without the support of SH. That is a fact.
This post alone proves to me that most Liberals are terrorist sympathizers and have no reguard for the protection of the country...and just to make it clear........I meant OUR country!!
The above post is one of the biggest reasons why some people should NOT be allowed to vote, and should never be in a position to make decisions impacting on the lives of others.
That has got to be the scariest amount of tripe I've seen in a long time. Scary cause I believe I-One believes every word of it. Talk about brainwashed! ::)
Goebbels sure knew what he was talking about didn't he? Nostradamus pales in comparison.
Such hubris as we've seen from the white house, coupled with the support of the rampantly paranoid and woefully ignorant is a sure-recipe for worldwide disaster.
ps - when you give illegals driver's licences, you ensure they know the rules of the road, while at the same time,
...ensures you know who they are, ...as well as where they are. dah! pps - Never take up chess.
-
...The evidence is clear, SH kept the terrorists out of Iraq. The areas he could not police however, were in the US imposed no-fly Kurdish regions. Terrorism that flourished in Iraq prior to the US led invasion, did so without the support of SH. That is a fact...
This is a great point. Chris Hitchens always defends the invasion on the grounds that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda b/c there were terrorists in Iraq during Hussein's rule. That type of disingenuous claim must be debunked b/c, like Hitchens, there are still apologists for the old worn lies of the Bush administration. Vigilance is important here.
-
Hussain above all else wanted to stay in power. He was many things, and among those, was smart enough to know that opening his country to terrorists was a threat to his absolute rule, ...not because the US would oppose it, but because first and foremost it undermined the authority he would have in his own nation. This was someting he avoided. The evidence is clear, SH kept the terrorists out of Iraq. The areas he could not police however, were in the US imposed no-fly Kurdish regions. Terrorism that flourished in Iraq prior to the US led invasion, did so without the support of SH. That is a fact.
Or not. http://www.husseinandterror.com/