If this is in response to anything I said earlier, what I "meant" was that it worked, not that I'd recommend it "again." ou: Just us existing is why they hate us. Don't believe we did this to ourselves. Do "they" have NO accountability? Please tell me you're not one of those blame America first individuals. They've been trying (and succeeding) to kill Americans for decades all over the world. Severing ALL ties to the middle east would ensure a polarized world more so than you could ever imagine. I think THAT is drastic. How about war in the name of survival and preservation? Does that fall anywhere in between? In a perfect world, terrorists wouldn't be flying jets into the world trade center and killing 3,000 people either. Is making peace with people like this "your" answer to saving America? We've basically turned a blind eye to terrorism for decades, where has it gotten us? Yeah, like about 17 U.N. resolutions. Should we have gone for 18 or 19? Running and hiding will not stop ANYBODY from trying to be the big kid on the block. Your Genesis view of the world will never come to be. It's a wonderful ideology for a story book, it just won't work on Earth, as nice as it would be. Finally I aggree with you on something. Only problem is, what do you consider "coming to us.?" I was just wondering if airliners flying into buildings and the Pentagon would fall into the category of something that in your opinion would constitute the use of force, or if maybe that wasn't significant enough? And please don't tell me Iraq had NOTHING to do with the terorist attacks. They STINK of terrorism to high Heaven. We're not going to find any banners which have "We Did It" written on them. Links have been confirmed. And not by right wing extremists either. You're obviously getting a severely left-slanted view of things. You must have just come from the preview of Farenheit 9-11. What is your view of a perfect America and then ask yourself if you truly think it would ever come to be in the "real world." The real world is where we live. No matter how much we try to hug our terrorist friends, they are not going away. They still want you and your family dead. They don't give a rats ass if John Kerry, Gearge Bush or Captain Crunch is president. You and your family DEAD is all they care about. They don't want your friendship. I am freakin exhausted!ou:
Ken, Let's talk about what you have misconstrued. Don't know what you're talking about here... I thought tubbed said something about it. Yeah, it is drastic, but it is sensible. There is no way to cut all ties of course. We need to cut as many as possible. As far as blaming America is concerned: I place the blame where it lies. I don't pull any punches. But, who is it that we are hunting down? Are you still spouting that nonsense of weapons of mass destruction? Get real! Iraq is no bigger threat than anyone else over there. The only reason we are there is because we had to do something to save face, and they were the easiest target. I say - Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. At the start of this post there were a bunch of reason why we should have started working on homeland security since 1979. What do I say to that? It's so obvious you've swallowed this propaganda hook line and sinker. I never said we shouldn't punish those that are guilty, but who are they? Should we destroy every middle eastern country in the name of the war on terrorism? I never said we should turn a blind eye. If you actually READ what I said, you'll see I think the focus needs to be here on a good defense and strengthening the country, rather than wasting our time in the dessert. Yeah, I am idealistic. I know it, and I won't deny it. If more people in this country would try to strive for the ideal, we could get somewhere. We didn't end up being the best nation on the face of the earth by mediocrity. I think the point was that this isn't a perfect world, but we should be the example to the world in the things that are good. We look like a bunch of fools at the present time. Now you're the one being idealistic. Of course they are linked. So are how many other countries? So, you want to take down the whole middle east? The point YET AGAIN... is that we NEED A GOOD DEFENSE! ARE YOU GETTING IT YET? We could keep these people out of the country if we put as much effort into watching our borders as we have put into this stupid pointless waste of time war. People result to namecalling when their argument gives way. Do you have anything intelligent to say, or do you want to just call me a liberal? If you aim for nothing, nothing is what you will get. Gee, do you really think? No kidding. I think it's an absolute riot- you accusing me of being a liberal. I am as right wing as it gets. I just won't support this stupid moronic president in killing off our people in the middle east for no good reason. Here's some info for you: In the last election, I voted for Bush. I would call myself Republican, and have been registered as such since I started voting. I am a 100% pro-life, conservative Christian. The reason I will not support this administration anymore is I don't have my head up my rear end, and I won't follow them over a cliff. It's time to start thinking for yourself.
It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! (read through to the bottom!) "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "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.. 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." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
I don't suspect Bush knowingly lied. He appears to really believe the intel he received, however flawed it might have been. But I've been known to make mistakes... From time to time. John
Sometimes I wonder if we invaded Iraq to control the countries who are actually dangerous in regards to weapons of mass destruction. I.E. There is no way we would want to tangle with a nation like North Korea because we know they won't hesistate to unleash hell on us and anyone else within reach. In the end no country wants to be responsible for millions of deaths no matter who pushed the button. Thus: Since our pretext for taking the Taliban down was support of terrorism it puts Saudia Arabia, Lybia, Packistan and any other middle eastern country that also supported terrorism at the time into check quickly. That pretty much happened right? Afganistan was hardly a threat to us militarily so it was a relatively safe way to show we mean business without engaging in a war with severe losses on either side. Same deal with Iraq except instead of terrorism it was weapons of mass destruction. We already kicked Iraqs a$$ ten years ago and their military wasn't anywhere near what it was then so it would seem to be a very effective way to dissuade other countries from developing WMDs without the heavy losses associated with a country that actually has and would use these weapons. It makes sense in the context of a new form of deterrence and catlyst for reform but that could hardly be part of a visible foreign policy because it seems heavy handed and makes us seem imperialist. Just my thoughts on the subject.
I never thought of it that way Jason. It's more psychological warfare than anything else, sort of an intimidation effect towards these other countries.
It does make a wierd sort of sense and would certainly explain why there aren't any WMD there. Maybe my brain is so fried from trying to make sense of this whole thing that it's started inventing secret plots to explain that which makes no sense.
Long thread and don't know if anyone mentioned it but do you know more people voted in the last American Idol than the last Presidential election??? Thats speaks tons.
From: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/American_Idol The third season of American Idol premiered on January 19, 2004. After a nationwide vote of more than 65 million votes in total, Fantasia Barrino was voted the next American Idol. Diana DeGarmo came in second 2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS General Election Date: 11/7/00 Source: State Elections Offices From: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm Total: 105,405,100 votes 105 million > 65 million. Maybe 40+ million American Idol voters where disenfranchised? C`mon man it took me 5 minutes to look those numbers up..
I believe that with american Idol you could vote more than once..... Now, I don't know if they were actually counting multiple votes... But it seems a major PIA to not count them. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.... I'm not getting involved any more than the American Idol postou:
Yeah... I don't really believe he knowingly lied either. I only hope that now we will clean up our mess and get out of there. It's true... we all make mistakes. A real man and a great leader will own up to it.
There's no doubt that the democrats lead Bush right into this whole thing. To say that he is solely to blame would be wrong. What if we were to list all the facts about N. Korea, China, and all the other countries surrounding Iraq? I wonder how their rap sheet would look in comparison. If I thought we could win in the middle east through a military effort and stabilize it, i would be on board right now. I don't agree with the killing of innocent people, but I understand that in this world with it's imperfection, sometimes we have to do such things, and innocent people will die. What I'm trying to get across is that I believe we are beyond that point now, and should strengthen things here. If anything, 9-11 was a wake up call showing that security here is too lax. I think that was the intent of the email/post, correct? These debates get so heated :af: I hope no one is taking it too personally. It's great that we all can have our say.
Now, that is an interesting way to look at it. This very well may have been the intention. My question for you is, do you think it was a success? Good post- new ideas.
One thing a lot of people dont remember, or are forgetting on purpose is before we attacked we had to base our policy and thinking on what the UN told us in their search for WMD. Now we get in the country and find none of them doesnt make it Clintons/Bush's/Republicans/Democrats fault.. perhaps we should start looking at the UN, and start blaming them for the bad intelligence. Steve, I liked your statement about being a republican and not blindly following them over a cliff. I've registered independent, have been registered Democrat most of my life though, finally gave up on both of the parties and have been wanting some third party to split the difference so to speak. Republicans are way over on one side of an issue and the Democrats are on the other extreme end, well what about the middle? In many cases meeting in the middle is the best option. We have too many people in this country pushing their beliefs on others, If you dont like pizza, dont have one, but dont tell me if I cant have one. If I want to have a pizza, choke on a piece of sausage and die that is my choice, not yours to make for me. You can put anything in place of the pizza and it still works.
Dave, I decided a while back to do some critical thinking about what I believe, and why. it's easier to follow one crowd or the other, but it's not what's right. What's right is more important than who is elected. That's the best I can explain my views and why I feel like I do about the political parties- there are no good choices. Unfortunately, I would end up somewhere off the charts and very much in the minority, I'm sure. I side with the republicans on many of the social issues: the right to have guns, I'm completely pro-life, etc. I don't believe government should be as big a part of our lives as it is. I think there is way too much interference. The only problem I have with your pizza analogy is that there are things that are bad for the country, not just the individual. I really believe that the morality of the population in a democracy has a direct influence on the economic and social health of that society. However, it isn't possible to legislate morality. That is the problem. When the leadership is corrupt, and the population is out for their own interests instead of the greater good, our system fails to function like it should.
Definately! Lybia halting its nuclear development, Pakistans cooperation as well as Saudia Arabias new found vigor prosecuting terrorism can all be considered successess based on what we've done in both Afganistan and Iraq. There may not be many fewer terrorists or acts of terrorism now but their traditional support bases are quickly eroding and I think that is going to end up making a huge difference. Also they are stupid enough to think that acts of terrorism in the same countries that supported them ( re: Saudi Arabia ) will somehow have an end result other than their own eradication. The road to peace has always been awash with blood but I for one would be happy to die knowing that it was for a cause that ultimately will make the world a better safer place for others.
