Who can tell me what's wrong with that statement (see the subject)??

That's the part of the first presidential debate that stood out the most to me. The way Kerry said that it was the 'wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time'...

You !CANNOT!, as chief-in-commander, say that to a group of soldiers that are probably on the verge of emotional breakdowns as they take all the shite that they do in Iraq.

Anyone agree?

I mean, alot of these troops are little more than kids, ya know? You can't, as Kerry did, vote to enter Iraq and then change your mind after not much can be done about it anyway and tell these soldiers that what they're doing is pointless. I'm sure the majority would pack up and leave the first chance they got if they were given the choice!!

You can't put them through all the crap they've gone through just to tell them that they're doing the wrong thing.

Kerry's too undecided in himself for me. I don't think he knows as much as Bush about everything that's going on the country and in the world, and he either can't make up his mind (for the lack of education in the matter) or he changes it all too much.

Nothing against him. I just see Bush as the lesser of two evils.

I don't agree with Bush in everything, either, but I share more views with him than I do with Kerry, and I just think he's better fit to be Mr. President.

This is just my opinion, of course. I love hearing what other people think. Feel free to contradict me and try to prove me wrong. I don't know that you'll be very effective, but I love a good debate ;)

:...:the asylum goes digital:...:

This should go here: Presidential Election Thread (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=12335)
I'm sure the majority would pack up and leave the first chance they got if they were given the choice!!
What does that tell you about the popular support for this war? Soldiers who aren't motivated to fight are bad for a war effort and show a lack of support, both in country and on the home front, due to the lower numbers of enlistments.
You can't put them through all the crap they've gone through just to tell them that they're doing the wrong thing.
Kerry was not single-handedly responsible for sending the troops there. If your opinion changes, you can believe something that you thought was right is wrong. Kerry might not be basing his opinion change on rational decisions, i.e. we know now that they have no WMD's, but when we went there we couldn't be sure.
Nothing against him. I just see Bush as the lesser of two evils.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

You !CANNOT!, as chief-in-commander, say that to a group of soldiers that are probably on the verge of emotional breakdowns as they take all the shite that they do in Iraq.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, right or wrong, is not only un-patriotic, but it is morally treasonable to the American people." -- President Theodore Roosevelt

Time of war, time of peace, our soldiers committed or not, one must as commander and chief speak the truth about a situation. If this war is a mistake, I would rather a leader who recognizes it such and is willing to talk in those terms than someone who will "stay the course" right or wrong

eramnes, yes - the lesser of two evils is still evil. But the lesser.

And yes, Kerry isn't responsible for shoving them out there, but think of it like this... to the soldiers, the President and the country are interchangeable, and the country sent them there.

Also, I posted the new thread because I didn't see this as an election debate per se. I saw this as a debate on Kerry's choice of words to describe the war that has already ended and yet continues.

Now, this is just for a bit of healthy debate, so don't shoot me or anything for supporting Bush :cool:

20 bucks to anybody who can define Kerry's position on the war!



Anybody.......?

20 bucks to anybody who can define Kerry's position on the war!



Anybody.......?

Nope. I can't. Except he doesn't support it, supports our troops, says we're spending too much money, says we need to spend more money...

I'm confused.

I agree. You can't tell the troops that it was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time and expect them to care. They'll just feel entirely useless. Even if Kerry fought in Vietnam and Bush didn't, that doesn't mean Kerry can lead troops. That's my two cents.

Nope. I can't. Except he doesn't support it, supports our troops, says we're spending too much money, says we need to spend more money...

I'm confused.

I agree. You can't tell the troops that it was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time and expect them to care. They'll just feel entirely useless. Even if Kerry fought in Vietnam and Bush didn't, that doesn't mean Kerry can lead troops. That's my two cents.

Kerry- This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, but by god were gonna win it!

hmmmmm......nope , doesnt work dude, get some new talking points from the Crossfire boys....

Kerry- This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, but by god were gonna win it!

hmmmmm......nope , doesnt work dude, get some new talking points from the Crossfire boys....

Funnily enough, if he pulled out completely, you'd be complaining about why he wasn't going to try and win the conflict completely.

I don't think we should be over in Iraq having a war, I mean it wasn't Iraq or Suddam who bomb the twin towers. we should have some soliders in afaganstain {sp?} looking for whats his name and none in Iraq. * My opinion*

I don't think we should be over in Iraq having a war, I mean it wasn't Iraq or Suddam who bomb the twin towers. we should have some soliders in afaganstain {sp?} looking for whats his name and none in Iraq. * My opinion*
Ah... but you're forgetting that Bush doesn't really care about who was behind 9/11... mostly because his family (and the Carlyle Group) will be in a world of shit financially if anybody points any fingers at the Saudi Arabians... :eek: Did I say that out loud? I'll get us all into terrible trouble... :eek:

So really, Bush and his camp are going after "terrorists" (whomever and wherever they may be)... and have decided that "terrorists" = Anyone with a big moustache and a camel that looks at them funny. Just ask the people at Guantanamo bay.

Oh, wait... you can't. Not even if you're their lawyer. :rolleyes:

For my own part, I think the attack on Iraq was just dandy, per my own moral code. We got rid of a vicious dictator and freed millions of people from his yoke. I just think we should also be saying sorry to them for selling Saddam the chemical weapons that he used on his people in the first place. And also, we should maybe just come clean and say we got rid of Saddam because we just didn't like him very much, and that the WMD were just an excuse. That would be fine with me.

But that would take the war in Iraq out of the whole International Terror theatre, which is what Bush has been using to legitemise his Presidency since 9/11 went down.

And we couldn't have THAT now, could we?

Ah... but you're forgetting that Bush doesn't really care about who was behind 9/11... mostly because his family (and the Carlyle Group) will be in a world of shit financially if anybody points any fingers at the Saudi Arabians... :eek: Did I say that out loud? I'll get us all into terrible trouble... :eek:

So really, Bush and his camp are going after "terrorists" (whomever and wherever they may be)... and have decided that "terrorists" = Anyone with a big moustache and a camel that looks at them funny. Just ask the people at Guantanamo bay.

Oh, wait... you can't. Not even if you're their lawyer. :rolleyes:

For my own part, I think the attack on Iraq was just dandy, per my own moral code. We got rid of a vicious dictator and freed millions of people from his yoke. I just think we should also be saying sorry to them for selling Saddam the chemical weapons that he used on his people in the first place. And also, we should maybe just come clean and say we got rid of Saddam because we just didn't like him very much, and that the WMD were just an excuse. That would be fine with me.

But that would take the war in Iraq out of the whole International Terror theatre, which is what Bush has been using to legitemise his Presidency since 9/11 went down.

And we couldn't have THAT now, could we?

I ask myself how Kerry would have handled WWI and WWII. I can only draw a comparison by his actions for the Gulf War. He voted against it. Even when we had a global coalition.

Now for starters this name of this thread is retarted. A buzz line created by Kerry to try to get elected to the most powerful position in the world. Let's look at the name shalll we?

Wrong war: All wars can be called this. It's a matter of position on the reason for war. Any war to stop the aggression of terrorists is needed.

Wrong place: The place is relative to the act of calling the war wrong. Much better to be there than here. Iraq was a bed for terrorists. That has been proven. There are memos that show links to terrorists groups. May not be Al-queda but groups who hate us. Same thing in my eyes.

Wrong time: The time to be proactive is never wrong. hitting them before they hit us is always a good thing. If we were proactive enough maybe this war would have never happened.

Kerry just came up with this one day and decided to use it without thinking of what it really meant.

Everyone must understand that this war was for numerious gulf war violations and the breach of 17 UN resolutions. If Saddam would have played by the rules that were set after we liberated Kuwait, then this would have never happened. He didn't. He continued to undermind the the UN and support those who hated us.

Now, yes we can go back and say that we gave him the weapons but we didn't tell him to kill those that he did. [Guns don't kill people, people kill people.] They were given because Iran possed a threat to his country.

We are doing what needs to be done. Go in and do the jobs ourselves and not outfit rouge thirdworld countries with weapons when they don't have the comman sense to know when and where to use them. You are right that was a HUGE mistake. That was then. We are doing what is right now.

What gets me is that everyoone wants peace and harmony. As do I but I am not blinded and I see that those who hate us could care less about peace and harmony. For every action there is a reaction. They knew this and they wanted a war. If not then tehy would have not sucker punched us on 9/11.

Can anyone say that we deserved the tragedy that happened on 9/11?

America may not be liked by all but that does not give them the right to harm / kill or wish ill will on us. Hell, I don't like several people and I would not wish them harm. Mush less do the harm myself.

You can't talk peace with people who could care less about having peace. Think about it people.

If you want to be a wimp ass nation who is looked at as crumbling under global pressure, then elect John Kerry. If you want a to be a nation who will take up for what is right then elect George Bush.


Elect the lies of Kerry or the resolve of Bush.

The choice is yours people. Make the right one.

Hey, Mark... This wasn't meant to be a thread about the election - we've got one for that. I know it's kinda at the front of everybody's minds on your side of the pond, but how about staying on point and calling me out on a few of my statements there?

You quoted me, after all ;)

Wrong time: The time to be proactive is never wrong. hitting them before they hit us is always a good thing. If we were proactive enough maybe this war would have never happened.

Elect the lies of Kerry or the resolve of Bush.

The choice is yours people. Make the right one.

Ah, but we did not attack before they hit us. And we did not go after the proper person after they did. The person behind the attacks is still out there due to Bush's misguidedness.

Ah, but we did not attack before they hit us. And we did not go after the proper person after they did. The person behind the attacks is still out there due to Bush's misguidedness.

Wow, talk about misguidedness. We didn't even go after the proper person? Wow I guess the Taliban just merrily stepped down out of the kindness of their hearts.

Wow, talk about misguidedness. We didn't even go after the proper person? Wow I guess the Taliban just merrily stepped down out of the kindness of their hearts.

Those Taliban are a nice bunch of guys arent they! :rolleyes:

So the terrorists were everywhere BUT Iraq? Is that what you are saying?

This site has a LOT of insight on it: http://www.husseinandterror.com/

This site is also very good...It's linking to many different sources, so don't write it off as partisan propaganda: http://www.bushcountry.org/news/mar_news_pages/g_032904_dembrowski_saddam_connections_bin_laden.h tm

Now, armed with this information, do you think it was a good idea to go in after Saddam? No, haven't found the WMDs YET, but Saddam did have them at one point as is evident by the mass graves and genocide in parts of his country that were conducted using WMDs. Saddam had 11 years to hide his WMDs, and we expect to find where they all went in less than 2 years? That's a little naive if you ask me.

Do not misunderstand me. When I say Bush went after the wrong person in the war, I was implying that he should have kept his focus on Bin Laden. Do I think it's good that Saddam was caught? Yes, but it just seems odd to me that we are going after one person and get another. Now our focus has switched to freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam and his government. Whatever happened to Bin Laden? I have not heard one word about him from Bush since the capture of Saddam.

Do not misunderstand me. When I say Bush went after the wrong person in the war, I was implying that he should have kept his focus on Bin Laden. Do I think it's good that Saddam was caught? Yes, but it just seems odd to me that we are going after one person and get another. Now our focus has switched to freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam and his government. Whatever happened to Bin Laden? I have not heard one word about him from Bush since the capture of Saddam.

Is this the war on OBL? No, it's the war on terror. OBL is neutralized, probably dead. There is no reason to go after someone who is no longer a threat. Saddam had terror ties, therefore he was a threat. Saddam was still in power, not like OBL.

Did President Bush do a horrible job of getting the American people on his side when it came to public support of the war? Yes. Should he have emphasized Saddam's terror ties rather than the WMDs? Yes. Is this war a mistake? No. This is the same war on terror that everybody supported in 2001. It's just an extension of what we were doing in going after OBL. This is not a war that ends with the capture of one man, as unfortunate as that is. We need to hunt down, and kill or capture any person who seeks to do harm to our citizens. THAT is what this war is about. To boil it down to Bin Laden is a naive assumption.

Do you then also disagree with the deposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan? THEY weren't OBL either, but it was OK to depose them?

W rocks my wildest fantasies.



:::sexy growllllll:::


GO BUSH.

Is this the war on OBL? No, it's the war on terror. OBL is neutralized, probably dead. There is no reason to go after someone who is no longer a threat. Saddam had terror ties, therefore he was a threat. Saddam was still in power, not like OBL.

Did President Bush do a horrible job of getting the American people on his side when it came to public support of the war? Yes. Should he have emphasized Saddam's terror ties rather than the WMDs? Yes. Is this war a mistake? No. This is the same war on terror that everybody supported in 2001. It's just an extension of what we were doing in going after OBL. This is not a war that ends with the capture of one man, as unfortunate as that is. We need to hunt down, and kill or capture any person who seeks to do harm to our citizens. THAT is what this war is about. To boil it down to Bin Laden is a naive assumption.

Do you then also disagree with the deposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan? THEY weren't OBL either, but it was OK to depose them?

Very well put. It could not have been said any better. People tend to forget that special forces have been there ever since day one. The focus of brut strength has been shifted but we still fight with what is needed. Special forces. A large infantry would not get the job done. It is the wrong part of our military to use for that type of fighting. If he would have sent them [infantry] in then Kerry would have said that he should have used special forces. It's a catch 22 with politics.

Originally Posted by Head
Ah... but you're forgetting that Bush doesn't really care about who was behind 9/11... mostly because his family (and the Carlyle Group) will be in a world of shit financially if anybody points any fingers at the Saudi Arabians... Did I say that out loud? I'll get us all into terrible trouble...

That is a false statement from someone who has no clue into the inner thoughts of an American who cares about his country. That's like me saying that Prince Charles is a liar and a cheat because of Camellia (sp). I haven't a clue as to what happened between them as do you not having an idea as to his thoughts of war.

The world would suffer if the Saudis were called to the carpet. We have become so dependent on foreign oil that any shift would kill the global economy. Not just the pocket books of families who are in the oil business.

And I know that this thread is not about the election but how in the shit can you talk about a quote that John Kerry said in a political speech and it not get back to the reason why he made the quote, the election. It all revolves around Nov 2nd.

I do hope you come to the party. I really want to met the man behind the curtain. :D

Right, Mark... you seem intent on ignoring me... I'm gonna put a number of points to you.

1) It's a cheap shot at the opposition to continue mentioning the part the individual members of the military play in this conflict. We all know that our soldiers are out there risking it and we thank them for that. It's their fucking JOB. That's what they DO. They are NOT doing it to help score party political points.

2) You still haven't answered any of the points I raised earlier. I'll repeat them, in sequential order. That might make it easier for you to refute them in turn.

i) The Bush Family (starting with George Senior) are heavily involved with the Bin Laden Family (They are major investors in the projects of the Carlyle Group, not least of all the laying of a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian basin, the largest single deposit of natural gas left on the planet)
ii) The Bin Laden family have over 2 Trillion Dollars invested in the US economy... at least 1 Trillion in US Govt stocka nd bonds, and another 1 Trillion on deposit in US banks. (Let's not forget for a minute that if these funds were withdrawn, the entire US economy (and so the WORLD economy) would be thrown into freefall)
iii) The Bin Ladens have said that they have cut all contact with the errant Osama... yet there was a video of a family wedding less that 3 months prior to the 9/11 attacks which showed Osama at a familly wedding with his mother, sisters and brothers
iv) in September 2001, Osama Bin Laden was reported to have been holed up in caves in Afghanistan in DIRE NEED of kidney dialysis... This isn't a condition that comes on overnight... could he have orchestrated the attacks? We're talking about Afghanistan... the fucking country hasn't more than 100 miles of Railtrack... how the hell does he arrange something like this from the middle of a mountain? I can't even get a mobile signal from my town centre to home, cos it drops 50 ft...
v) cast your mind back to point no i)... Now, remember that Al Qaeida blew up a couple of American embassies in Africa in 2000? and Clinton said "No fuckin' WAY are we dealing with these bastards!!" Well, the whole pipleline thing was put in danger. How the hell do we deal with that?
vi) Well, it's been dealt with. Dubya's installed and everything seems hunky dory again... except it's taken so long that Enron (yes... you guessed it... Dubya's other company) has brokered another deal, and the pipeline has gone ahead. Never mind that the company's gone under, under dubious circumstances... the pipeline's been built, and the Afghans aren't happy... now, remember that the Afghans at the time were the Taliban... and they were BEST MATES with Osama and his Al Qaeida bunch... and he was still real fucking tight with his family, since he was at a family wedding A YEAR AFTER THE SAUDIS TOLD YOU THEY'D CUT ALL TIES WITH HIM...
vii) So now we've got pissed off Saudis. And they're pissed off with America, cos the BILLIONS of dollars from the pipeline deal didn't go their way.How long before this does 9/11 happen?

THREE MONTHS.

That's right 3 fucking months after Bush and his lot let an oil deal go tits up with a fundamentalist regime, a bunch of "Terrorists" (Out of whom, 15 out of 19 identified came from SAUDI ARABIA) flew jumbo jets into the World Trade Centre and The Pentagon.

Have you any idea how hard it is to fly JUMBO JETS into buildings as thin as the Twin Towers? Buy yourself a Flight Sim program. Try it. IT'S NOT FUCKING EASY.

We've been told that the "Terrorists" learned to fly the planes on a weekend course somewhere in Nebraska. A WEEKEND COURSE? We're talking about jumbo jets here, folks. Flying Jumbo Jets into targets as thin as a piece of string (which is what the World Trade Centre would seem to bee when travelling at 500 miles per hour) is NOT something you learn in a weekend. You have to be trained. MILITARILY TRAINED.

So, here's what I'm saying.

1) 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeida, but under the sponsorship of the Saudi government. It was just convenient for them to blame it on a member of their family they knew was unstable and unlikely to survive the year.
2) Bush couldn't possibly let this be known, because if America were to take up arms against the Saudis, they'd simply take their money back and there'd be none left for war. Or anything else.
3) So, he diverted your attention away from Saudi by blaming "Terrorists" - notably Afghanistan (a fucking STONE AGE SOCIETY) for 9/11... and riding the political wave to invade Iraq, to gain control of the oilfields (vicariously through the Government they hoped to install. Imagine their surprise when their candidate wasn't elected...) They wanted to do this to attemp to free themselves from the Saudi stranglehold over the US.
4) So now he's turning your attention to Iran. Another bunch that his daddy didn't like... Mark my words... you don't sell 250 Bunker Buster Bombs to Israel and expect them not to use them on the only other power in the region with nuclear capability (yes... America's just done that, last month)

To think... all this could be avoided if you'd just use cars with smaller engines...

And if you wouldn't blindly believe that your political leaders have your 'children's safety' at heart when they're really just protecting their share values...

We had no reason that was defensible under MORAL JUSTICE to go to war with Iraq. That doesn't mean we were wrong to take Saddam out... but we didn't have any legal RIGHT to do it.

It was the WRONG WAR, because it was embarked upon on the back of a LIE. There were NO weapons of mass destruction (Read the report from the Iraq Survey Group)... Saddam was NOT an imminent threat to us or our neighbours... We just wanted rid of him. Fine by me... but why can't we just ADMIT IT??

Now think about the rest of the "War On Terror". And the Carlyle Group. And the Saudi Royal Family's relationships with the US and UK treasuries... and the close personal relationships with the Bin Laden and Bush families.

Make your own minds up.

That is a false statement from someone who has no clue into the inner thoughts of an American who cares about his country.No it isn't... It's a statement from an independant observer who's reviewed all the facts. People here won't be drawn by Nationalistic nonsense. Try again. That's like me saying that Prince Charles is a liar and a cheat because of Camellia (sp). I haven't a clue as to what happened between them as do you not having an idea as to his thoughts of war. Wrong again... Charles IS a liar and a cheat. I wish he'd just own up to it. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, I wish that Clarence House would be a bit more forthcoming about the details of what happened in that Paris Underpass... but I guess it's never gonna happen. Do you begin to see the bullshit that I hate about our modern world?

The world would suffer if the Saudis were called to the carpet. We have become so dependent on foreign oil that any shift would kill the global economy. Not just the pocket books of families who are in the oil business.what - so that makes it RIGHT? Wake up, mate... All you have to do is drive a car with a 1.4 ltr engine and you'll put these bastards out of business... yet you still seem happy to pander to them. I just don't get it.

And I know that this thread is not about the election but how in the shit can you talk about a quote that John Kerry said in a political speech and it not get back to the reason why he made the quote, the election. It all revolves around Nov 2nd.I never mentioned Kerry. It's YOU that can't seem to keep him out of the conversation.

I do hope you come to the party. I really want to met the man behind the curtain. :DMy curtains are really scabby, mate. And if I make it, the beers are on me. This is at least a million miles from personal.

:D

Head, without having to cut and paste the quotes, I will have to try and sum it up.

Don't think that for a minute that if we had to that we wouldn't just make a glass parking lot out of Saudi Arabia. If they can be linked to 9/11 then either President would do what Bush would do. Sure the global economy would suffer. Not just the American economy. So the relation to oil and it being an American concern (your engine comment)is invalid. The 1 trillion dollars that they have would take back, would be seized and never be touched by them again. Think about it. Man I would love to be able to prove that. Screw them taking it. They couldn't.

As you stated, if there is a VALID link between 9/11 and the Saudi government then there is hell to be paid. I don't trust the Saudis as far as I can throw them. But they are a key factor in the worlds survival. If it can be proved that they were sponsors of 9/11 then the world would own that fucking country. Maybe not tomorrow but oneday. Don't think that for a minute that if we had die hard proof that we could not get a coalition to hold them accountable. Even if France and Germany didn't want it. They don't rule this world that we live in and neither do we.

If they killed our citizens and we invaded them, I know that many idiots would think that it is about the oil. The oil will be extra. Look at it as payment for what they did. WOW an expensive attack, if we can prove that the Saudis had anything to do with it, as you have stated, then America and the world just became very rich. The Saudis aren't stupid, Head. I highly doubt that they would be the sponors of such an attack.

Now for you having reviewed all the facts. Head, if you have seen everything that is to be seen, then you have been into some very secure websites. Let's not count the information that is put on the web. We all know how unreliable that info is. So after reading the 'facts' then why not run for office. Yoru insight may be wanted by some party. It will not be my political party someone would want it. The democrats would have a field day with those 'facts' if they were 'true'. Head you are smarter than to believe everything that you read and or see. Look at the souce and quote that source and then I will take a look at your 'facts'.

I an not pandering to the Saudi's. They have a resource that is vital to this world. It's not just the US that needs this. Sure we need more but everyone needs it and if everyone needs it then the world would suffer. As I said earlier, if we can prove that they had anything, ANYTHING, to do with 9/11, we should seize all assets and destroy them as well. It would not be hard. Global acceptance would be hte most difficult but hey screw you if you can't se our motives if they were behind it.

tMR

Who can tell me what's wrong with that statement (see the subject)??

That's the part of the first presidential debate that stood out the most to me. The way Kerry said that it was the 'wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time'...

You !CANNOT!, as chief-in-commander, say that to a group of soldiers that are probably on the verge of emotional breakdowns as they take all the shite that they do in Iraq.

Anyone agree?

I mean, alot of these troops are little more than kids, ya know? You can't, as Kerry did, vote to enter Iraq and then change your mind after not much can be done about it anyway and tell these soldiers that what they're doing is pointless. I'm sure the majority would pack up and leave the first chance they got if they were given the choice!!

You can't put them through all the crap they've gone through just to tell them that they're doing the wrong thing.

Kerry's too undecided in himself for me. I don't think he knows as much as Bush about everything that's going on the country and in the world, and he either can't make up his mind (for the lack of education in the matter) or he changes it all too much.

Nothing against him. I just see Bush as the lesser of two evils.

I don't agree with Bush in everything, either, but I share more views with him than I do with Kerry, and I just think he's better fit to be Mr. President.

This is just my opinion, of course. I love hearing what other people think. Feel free to contradict me and try to prove me wrong. I don't know that you'll be very effective, but I love a good debate ;)

:...:the asylum goes digital:...:
Yes I agree with you because I might be one of them that will have to go over there..I'm in the National Guard and hopefully we wont have to go over there

Is this the war on OBL? No, it's the war on terror. OBL is neutralized, probably dead. There is no reason to go after someone who is no longer a threat. Saddam had terror ties, therefore he was a threat. Saddam was still in power, not like OBL.

Did President Bush do a horrible job of getting the American people on his side when it came to public support of the war? Yes. Should he have emphasized Saddam's terror ties rather than the WMDs? Yes. Is this war a mistake? No. This is the same war on terror that everybody supported in 2001. It's just an extension of what we were doing in going after OBL. This is not a war that ends with the capture of one man, as unfortunate as that is. We need to hunt down, and kill or capture any person who seeks to do harm to our citizens. THAT is what this war is about. To boil it down to Bin Laden is a naive assumption.

Do you then also disagree with the deposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan? THEY weren't OBL either, but it was OK to depose them?


1. How do we know OBL is neutralized or dead if we don't search? And why would he no longer be a threat? If there is no sign of his death, wouldn't it be better to assume he is still a threat and try to find something, a body, evidence of his death or evidence he's still alive?

2. Let's not forget what started the war on terror. OBL's attacks. Now that we have Saddam, we need to take care of other threats.

3. This is the same war on terror that everybody supported in 2001
Not everyone supported the war, government or civilian.

4. No, I agree with the deposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan. THEY were PART of the war on terror, just as Saddam. But there is still a problem with terror. Bush only seems concerned with the freedom of the Iraqi people, when there are other problems he should be looking at as well.

1. How do we know OBL is neutralized or dead if we don't search? And why would he no longer be a threat? If there is no sign of his death, wouldn't it be better to assume he is still a threat and try to find something, a body, evidence of his death or evidence he's still alive?

2. Let's not forget what started the war on terror. OBL's attacks. Now that we have Saddam, we need to take care of other threats.

3.
Not everyone supported the war, government or civilian.

4. No, I agree with the deposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan. THEY were PART of the war on terror, just as Saddam. But there is still a problem with terror. Bush only seems concerned with the freedom of the Iraqi people, when there are other problems he should be looking at as well.


First off, why waste money, time and effort if UBL isn't a threat?

On 9/12 the entire nation, regardless of a few mindless ones who like to get pushed around, was ready to seek and destroy those who were responsible. ToB didn't mean exactly everyone, he meant the majority and then it was a hell of a lot more than now. People get soft when they return back to their comfort zone. I don't. Hit me once shame on you. Hit me twice shame on me. I am a passive person but when someone comes into my yard and threatens me, I will fight back. I will not start a fight and I have been known to walk away from them but when you threaten to kill me or my family, I will kill you.

It is that simple.

tMR

First off, why waste money, time and effort if UBL isn't a threat?

tMR

But why isn't he a threat? If there is no evidence of his death, then he could be plotting another attakc. I think we need to put forth the effort, time and money and find out facts.

1. How do we know OBL is neutralized or dead if we don't search? And why would he no longer be a threat? If there is no sign of his death, wouldn't it be better to assume he is still a threat and try to find something, a body, evidence of his death or evidence he's still alive?

2. Let's not forget what started the war on terror. OBL's attacks. Now that we have Saddam, we need to take care of other threats.

3.
Not everyone supported the war, government or civilian.

4. No, I agree with the deposal of the Taliban in Afghanistan. THEY were PART of the war on terror, just as Saddam. But there is still a problem with terror. Bush only seems concerned with the freedom of the Iraqi people, when there are other problems he should be looking at as well.

1. Nobody has seen hide nor hair of OBL in 2 years. He's been out of contact with his minions. There are currently 20,000 forces deployed in Afghanistan, so don't ever say that we aren't looking for him. We will find him regardless of his current life status.

2. You are absolutely correct. And do you think Kerry will do this? No. He will shrink back into his hole and wait for another terrorist attack to happen on US soil. We cannot pull out of Iraq, and to disengage our forces right now would put Iraq, the Middle East and the US into grave danger. We have thousands of counter-terrorist agents out there fighting terrorism all over the world; I know of one member of this board who is in fact one. So don't say that we're not fighting terrorism, because we are.

How is Kerry's plan to fight terrorism different from what Bush is doing? Kerry always says that he would fight the war "smarter" or "faster". But how does he plan on doing that? Internationalization? Bribing other nations to join us in Iraq to ease some of the burden? These nations wouldn't support us in the beginning, but now when it comes time to rebuild Iraq and the possibility of getting their grubby little hands on some money from such rebuilding efforts, they are all over the place!

I'd really like to hear Kerry's plan for winning the war, if he even has one. All I've heard from him is regurgitated Bush-speak with some adjectives like "faster" or "smarter" thrown in.

3. The vote to give the President the power to go to war was passed in a VERY bipartisan manner. Even Kerry, who is the most liberal senator in the Senate, voted for it.

4. I've already addressed this point in #2. What do you suggest we do, turn tail and run now that we've got Saddam? We can't leave Iraq in the state it is in. It is our responsibility to help them instate a government that works for them and is a peaceable government. And your assumption that we are not fighting terror is a false one. There are people out there all over the world working behind the scenes to make sure the next attack doesn't kill YOU. What makes you think that Kerry will put the terrorists' collective feet to the fire more than what Bush is doing? Terrorists DO NOT want to see Bush re-elected, and that right there is reason enough to re-elect him.

Thank you, and good night.

How is Kerry's plan to fight terrorism different from what Bush is doing?

What makes you think that Kerry will put the terrorists' collective feet to the fire more than what Bush is doing? Terrorists DO NOT want to see Bush re-elected, and that right there is reason enough to re-elect him.

Thank you, and good night.

I don't know what Kerry has in store as far as the war is concerned. Nor do I think Kerry will do more than what Bush is doing. In fact, I think Bush is and was doing a better job with the war than Kerry would have. What either candidate will do with the war is not my deciding factor on who to vote for.

There are people out there all over the world working behind the scenes to make sure the next attack doesn't kill YOU.
Yes I realize that, as over half my family is fighting in Iraq.

I'm not convinced that either Bush or Kerry would actually leave Iraq in a better state. IMO, both would go for the quick "Let's put a fascist in power to fix things up, but he hates terrorists and some of our enemies, who cares what he does to the Iraqi people or other countries besides out allies?" approach. It's been done before in Iraq and other countries, and I believe it'll happen again.

As I said here (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?p=540740&highlight=Iraq#post540740), this is how the West created the whole damn mess in Iraq in the first place.

But why isn't he a threat? If there is no evidence of his death, then he could be plotting another attakc.

Ummm you do realize the UBL was not the planner of the 9/11 attacks don't you?

I'm not convinced that either Bush or Kerry would actually leave Iraq in a better state. IMO, both would go for the quick "Let's put a fascist in power to fix things up, but he hates terrorists and some of our enemies, who cares what he does to the Iraqi people or other countries besides out allies?" approach. It's been done before in Iraq and other countries, and I believe it'll happen again.

As I said here (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?p=540740&highlight=Iraq#post540740), this is how the West created the whole damn mess in Iraq in the first place.

If that was the case, then we would have done so already and we'd be out of there. We wouldn't be wasting human lives for something so trivial.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, right or wrong, is not only un-patriotic, but it is morally treasonable to the American people." -- President Theodore Roosevelt

Time of war, time of peace, our soldiers committed or not, one must as commander and chief speak the truth about a situation. If this war is a mistake, I would rather a leader who recognizes it such and is willing to talk in those terms than someone who will "stay the course" right or wrong


I love that statement..I just love it. I'm not going to argue about anything, I just had to say that I really loved that statement :)

I love that statement..I just love it. I'm not going to argue about anything, I just had to say that I really loved that statement :)

Gee, thanks for your very insightful interjection.

I love that statement..I just love it. I'm not going to argue about anything, I just had to say that I really loved that statement :)

Too bad the statement is as off topic now as it was when Lly used it in response to

You !CANNOT!, as chief-in-commander, say that to a group of soldiers that are probably on the verge of emotional breakdowns as they take all the shite that they do in Iraq.

The question was if you can win a war you don't believe in, not if there should be public question of the president's policy or not.

I don't know what Kerry has in store as far as the war is concerned. Nor do I think Kerry will do more than what Bush is doing. In fact, I think Bush is and was doing a better job with the war than Kerry would have.

Then what are you doing in here arguing for Kerry?

Is this the war on OBL? No, it's the war on terror. OBL is neutralized, probably dead. There is no reason to go after someone who is no longer a threat. Saddam had terror ties, therefore he was a threat. Saddam was still in power, not like OBL.

OBL is very much alive. both the administration and it opposers have all but said they dropped the ball on that one. watch the news. he got away. end of story.

and yes, Saddam did have terror ties. he was a ruthles dictator, and the world is better off without him.
however..
thats not the reason Bush stated for going in after him. the stated reason was that he had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US, both were proven to be completely false, as were the claims that he had ties to OBM.
it wasnt until we found out there were no "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" that Bush turned around and said 'oh yeah, that wasnt the reason. we did it to free the people'. noble enough, but not stated before hand. if youre going to go to war, make sure you know why..

is OBM crippled? yes. we took out the majority of the leaderes that worked with him. as far as not seeing him in 2 years, youre really gonna have to give a better arguement than that. he waits. he's always waited. thats how he caught us with our pants down in the first place. these people know how to be patient.

20 bucks to anybody who can define Kerry's position on the war!

get your wallet ready.
Kerry is treating the war like a mistake that needs to be fixed. he's saying we shouldnt have gone in to begin with, but now that we're stuck there, its our responsability to at least clean up the mess.
by the way, i dont remeber him ever saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". those were Bush's words, in reference to Kerry's position, and naturaly theyre going to be a little slanted. i could be mistaken, but you can check the debates on cnn.com if youd like to make sure. theyre all there.

by the way, whats so bad about being a flip-flop? couldnt it be considered a good thing if a politician is actualy capable of changing his mind based on new information, rather than satying consistant, even if it means being consistantly wrong?

as far as the war on terror, so far weve succeded in pissing everyone off. probably causing more terrorists than before. not to mention the fact that there were far more dangerous people to go after than Saddam. North Korea has been ranked one of the single most dangerous country in the world. and we know they have the bomb. why didnt we go after them?

and yes, Saddam did have terror ties. he was a ruthles dictator, and the world is better off without him.
however..
thats not the reason Bush stated for going in after him. the stated reason was that he had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US, both were proven to be completely false, as were the claims that he had ties to OBM.
it wasnt until we found out there were no "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" that Bush turned around and said 'oh yeah, that wasnt the reason. we did it to free the people'. noble enough, but not stated before hand. if youre going to go to war, make sure you know why..


Ummm from George W Bush's comments to the United Nations Septermber 12, 2002.

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

Seems there were a few reasons other than WMD listed before we ever went into Iraq. Unfortunately people would rather take the line of crap they're being fed as fact rather than look up something they could easily research themselves.

Full text available here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)


by the way, i dont remeber him ever saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". those were Bush's words, in reference to Kerry's position, and naturaly theyre going to be a little slanted. i could be mistaken, but you can check the debates on cnn.com if youd like to make sure. theyre all there.

Hmmm so apparently all campaining happened only during the debates.

From The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/politics/campaign/07campaign.html?ex=1098936000&en=1120f88a3cefc765&ei=5070&hp)

"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said.

There are many other sources that attribute the same quote to Kerry, just google "wrong war wrong place wrong time john kerry" you'll get a ton of them.

and yes, Saddam did have terror ties. he was a ruthles dictator, and the world is better off without him.
however..
thats not the reason Bush stated for going in after him. the stated reason was that he had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US, both were proven to be completely false, as were the claims that he had ties to OBM.
These were proven to be "completely false?" Where? When? By whom? Just because we haven't found any WMDs now doesn't mean there weren't any. Saddam actually used them against his OWN PEOPLE on several different occasions. We've been after him to get rid of his weapons for 11 years, and we expect to be able to find them in a matter of 2 years? He's had 11 years to hide them. I don't think so. If you would have read one of my previous posts, I said that Bush made a mistake in the reasoning for the war, but not in going after Saddam. I said:
Did President Bush do a horrible job of getting the American people on his side when it came to public support of the war? Yes. Should he have emphasized Saddam's terror ties rather than the WMDs? Yes. Is this war a mistake? No. This is the same war on terror that everybody supported in 2001.
With hindsight you can say anything was a false assumption. Bush was working with the intelligence that he, along with every other world leader in the world, had. Yes, Bush should have more clearly laid out the Saddam/Terrorist links. I am not disputing that fact. But to say this war is a mistake because of the "stated purpose" is a mistake in and of itself.

it wasnt until we found out there were no "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" that Bush turned around and said 'oh yeah, that wasnt the reason. we did it to free the people'. noble enough, but not stated before hand. if youre going to go to war, make sure you know why..
You really, honestly believe that the President didn't "know why" he was going to war? Do you think the media tells you everything that the President has said? Yes, Bush could have been 150% more effective in communication with the American public, but personally I'd rather have a President that is taking action rather than standing around talking about it all the time.

is OBM crippled? yes. we took out the majority of the leaderes that worked with him. as far as not seeing him in 2 years, youre really gonna have to give a better arguement than that. he waits. he's always waited. thats how he caught us with our pants down in the first place. these people know how to be patient.
We can be patient too. If OBL is still alive, we will catch him, but until then his capabilities have been hampered so much that he is unable to operate. If he sticks his head out to involve himself in any planning at all, we will find him. We have thousands of very talented people looking for him, and if he is alive, we WILL find him.



Kerry is treating the war like a mistake that needs to be fixed. he's saying we shouldnt have gone in to begin with, but now that we're stuck there, its our responsability to at least clean up the mess.
by the way, i dont remeber him ever saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". those were Bush's words, in reference to Kerry's position, and naturaly theyre going to be a little slanted. i could be mistaken, but you can check the debates on cnn.com if youd like to make sure. theyre all there.
What message does saying that this war is a "mistake" send to our troops that are dying over there to liberate thousands of human beings? What message does it send to the Iraqi people? Is the spread Democracy and human rights ever a mistake? No.

as far as the war on terror, so far weve succeded in pissing everyone off. probably causing more terrorists than before. not to mention the fact that there were far more dangerous people to go after than Saddam. North Korea has been ranked one of the single most dangerous country in the world. and we know they have the bomb. why didnt we go after them?
At least the terrorists are afraid of us now, and aren't expecting to be able to just walk into our country and blow the hell out of us when we're least expecting it. Sure we've pissed people off, but sometimes that's what it takes to get your point across. Different situations require different diplomatic tactics. It's basic foreign policy decision-making. Kerry wants us to go unilaterally in talks with North Korea while opposing unilateral action against Iraq? I don't buy it. You can read for yourself in the transcript of the debates the reasoning on why we didn't go after North Korea just as easily as you suggested that someone else could.

These were proven to be "completely false?" Where? When? By whom?
Rumsfeld admited it himself a few months ago in a media frenzy.

and we expect to be able to find them in a matter of 2 years?

"These are things that are not easy to conceal. For a nuclear bomb you need a nuclear reactor. For a missile you need a large factory." MSNBC.com

"After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed." commondreams.org

With hindsight you can say anything was a false assumption. Bush was working with the intelligence that he, along with every other world leader in the world, had. Yes, Bush should have more clearly laid out the Saddam/Terrorist links. I am not disputing that fact. But to say this war is a mistake because of the "stated purpose" is a mistake in and of itself.

fair enough. sure, situations and intellegence changes. but why Iraq? why not North Korea, or why not finish the job in Afganstan? most of all, since Iraq wasnt a direct threat to us, why push the UN aside on this?

You really, honestly believe that the President didn't "know why" he was going to war?

no. i just think that his real reasons for going in wouldnt sit right with the rest of us. then again, it could just be a difference of opinion, so ill let that one go.
however, others in his adminstraion have said several times that he had his eye on Iraq long before 9/11
for example:
"Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war." USATODAY.com

Yes, Bush could have been 150% more effective in communication with the American public, but personally I'd rather have a President that is taking action rather than standing around talking about it all the time.
we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. id like to see a president that works for, not above the American people, and keeps us informed as to why we're moving to a first strike policy on a country that hasnt directly threatened us.
and dont even get me started on the communication skills of this 'chif diplomat'.

We have thousands of very talented people looking for him [OBL], and if he is alive, we WILL find him.
then why havent we? we had him cornered for crying out loud. where were those talented people then? shifting over to Iraq, thats where. meantime we let the Osama job to he Afgan soldiers.

What message does saying that this war is a "mistake" send to our troops that are dying over there to liberate thousands of human beings? What message does it send to the Iraqi people? Is the spread Democracy and human rights ever a mistake? No.
since when did we become imperialist?
calling the war a mistake tells the troops we're now doing everyhting we can to fix it and get them the hell out of there.
and the Iraqis have been calling this a mistake for longer than we have. the difference is they state theyre opinion on that through car bombs and bullets.

At least the terrorists are afraid of us now, and aren't expecting to be able to just walk into our country and blow the hell out of us when we're least expecting it.
define fear when talking about suicide bombers. but now youre talking bout Homeland Security, which i dont really have a problem with. though it runs the risk history repearing itself. this is how the SS got started. i know, thats a bit extream, but i want to throw it out there.

You can read for yourself in the transcript of the debates the reasoning on why we didn't go after North Korea

i think i missed that. ill have to check that out and get back to you, but thanks for pointing it out.


ooh, feels good to have a good political debate with someone without it lapsing into an petty arguement :) . (and no, im not being sarcastic)

"These are things that are not easy to conceal. For a nuclear bomb you need a nuclear reactor. For a missile you need a large factory." MSNBC.com

"After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed." commondreams.org
"On Dec. 24, 2002, nearly three months before fighting in Iraq began, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused Saddam Hussein's regime of transferring key materials for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs to Syria in convoys of 18-wheel trucks to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors. "There is information we are verifying, but we are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria," Sharon told Channel Two television in Israel."

"Reports of Iraqi WMD winding up in Syria were not just coming from the Israelis. In October 2003, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, revealed that vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to Saddam's forbidden WMD programs had been shipped to Syria before the war." -- Insight: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123




however, others in his adminstraion have said several times that he had his eye on Iraq long before 9/11
for example:
"Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war." USATODAY.com
Paul O'Neill is a disgruntled ex-employee of the President. Take what he says with a grain of salt. And even if Bush DID have plans to invade Iraq, it still boils down to the fact that Saddam wasn't cooperating with the U.N. who passed numerous "resolutions" against him. EVEN IF Saddam never had any WMDs, it was still right to depose him from power because he was not cooperating with the terms of the treaty that he signed when he was defeated in the first gulf war. Not to mention the genocide he was committing as is evident by the mass graves that are beginning to be unearthed.


we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. id like to see a president that works for, not above the American people, and keeps us informed as to why we're moving to a first strike policy on a country that hasnt directly threatened us.
The President works on behalf of the United States of America. He is not elected by the people. Therefore he does not work for the American people. It is not his responsibility to keep us informed; it is a decision a President makes to do so. His public speaking skills have absolutely nothing to do with his diplomatic ability.


then why havent we? we had him cornered for crying out loud. where were those talented people then? shifting over to Iraq, thats where. meantime we let the Osama job to he Afgan soldiers.
You also don't know the whole story. All you know is what the media has fed you. They don't talk about the fact that he's cut off from the rest of his organization has been captured or killed. OBL has no viable organization right now! He is on the run. His organization is in ruins. Communication lines are being disrupted, messengers captured, and terrorist plots are being foiled. But you never hear about those, and the only time you ever will hear about the counter-intelligence community is when a mistake is made.


since when did we become imperialist?
calling the war a mistake tells the troops we're now doing everyhting we can to fix it and get them the hell out of there.
and the Iraqis have been calling this a mistake for longer than we have. the difference is they state theyre opinion on that through car bombs and bullets.
Bringing liberty to people is not an imperialistic gesture. We believe as a core value of "Americanism" that all people deserve the right to be free, and that cause is worth fighting for. It is far more important that we leave Iraq with a strong government in place, and that we leave it better than we found it. Most of these insurgents are people who have immigrated into the country for the sole purpose of fighting against the "Infidels". They are radical Islamo-Fascists who want to impose their tyranny on the Iraqi people once again. They are not the voice of the typical Iraqi. Most Iraqis are happy that we're there! If you look around you can find Iraqi bloggers, good news from Iraq, and happy Iraqis on the net. You just have to know where to look, and the mainstream media sure isn't going to just hand you that information. Here is a good place to start: http://windsofchange.net/archives/005780.php

"On Dec. 24, 2002, nearly three months before fighting in Iraq began, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused Saddam Hussein's regime of transferring key materials for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs to Syria in convoys of 18-wheel trucks to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors. "There is information we are verifying, but we are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria," Sharon told Channel Two television in Israel."

"Reports of Iraqi WMD winding up in Syria were not just coming from the Israelis. In October 2003, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, revealed that vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to Saddam's forbidden WMD programs had been shipped to Syria before the war." -- Insight: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123
...
EVEN IF Saddam never had any WMDs, it was still right to depose him from power because he was not cooperating with the terms of the treaty that he signed when he was defeated in the first gulf war.
...
Most of these insurgents are people who have immigrated into the country for the sole purpose of fighting against the "Infidels". They are radical Islamo-Fascists who want to impose their tyranny on the Iraqi people once again. They are not the voice of the typical Iraqi.
all are good points there. ill give you that.

The President works on behalf of the United States of America. He is not elected by the people. Therefore he does not work for the American people.
now this im just gonna have to blatenty disagree with.

You also don't know the whole story. All you know is what the media has fed you.
dont jump to conclusions. i try not form opinions on an issue unless i understand both sides. thats why i like this thread. if someone can make a good arguement for something i didnt origionaly agree with, i can accept it. thats why im not refuting everything youre telling me, because some of it i didnt know. but dont assume i get all my news from the mainstream media. i know its slanted.
(besides, i get a lot of my news from the Daily Show ;))

They don't talk about the fact that he's cut off from the rest of his organization has been captured or killed. OBL has no viable organization right now! He is on the run. His organization is in ruins. Communication lines are being disrupted, messengers captured, and terrorist plots are being foiled.
youre right, but i already addressed that by saying he's crippled. but if he's left alive he could come back in another 10 years. or, maybe well never hear from him again. my point was, taking him out was suppose to be high priority, and it ws instead presented as a scape goat to go after Saddam. refute that ll you want, but almost every time Bush would talk about one, hed mention the other in the same sentence.

But you never hear about those, and the only time you ever will hear about the counter-intelligence community is when a mistake is made.
now that i undoubtably true. the problem is, according to the 9/11 commision which Bush tried to prevent the creation of, they shouldve had enough intelligence to see this comming. this was no small mistake.


Paul O'Neill is a disgruntled ex-employee of the President. Take what he says with a grain of salt.
how about some others then.
"The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald... was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the... Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

...It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'" sundayherald.com

"Richard Clarke: 'Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11"
and i think Clarke is respectable enough to believe.

And even if Bush DID have plans to invade Iraq, it still boils down to the fact that Saddam wasn't cooperating with the U.N. who passed numerous "resolutions" against him. EVEN IF Saddam never had any WMDs, it was still right to depose him from power because he was not cooperating with the terms of the treaty that he signed when he was defeated in the first gulf war. Not to mention the genocide he was committing as is evident by the mass graves that are beginning to be unearthed.
i know theyre better off without him. i addressed that too. but going after Saddam wasnt the reason we went in.
going in because he wasnt cooperting with the UN is a good enough reason. except we did so without the UN.

Bringing liberty to people is not an imperialistic gesture.
no, but forcing democracy on them is.

It is far more important that we leave Iraq with a strong government in place, and that we leave it better than we found it.
im was never disputing that. and for that matter, neither was Kerry.
he's saying we shouldnt be there. but since we are, lets at least get it right.

now this im just gonna have to blatenty disagree with.
How do you disagree? What backs up your position?


youre right, but i already addressed that by saying he's crippled. but if he's left alive he could come back in another 10 years. or, maybe well never hear from him again. my point was, taking him out was suppose to be high priority, and it ws instead presented as a scape goat to go after Saddam. refute that ll you want, but almost every time Bush would talk about one, hed mention the other in the same sentence.
Untrue. OBL is not the problem; global terrorism is. If OBL/Al Qaida is neutralized, then we've done our job.


now that i undoubtably true. the problem is, according to the 9/11 commision which Bush tried to prevent the creation of, they shouldve had enough intelligence to see this comming. this was no small mistake.
Bush was in office for less than 9 months. Any flaws in the system were brought about by the Clinton era, and thusly cannot be blamed on the Bush administration.


how about some others then.
That sounds like Bush had plans for America's safety, and removing Saddam from power was part of the plan. How is that bad for Bush?

i know theyre better off without him. i addressed that too. but going after Saddam wasnt the reason we went in.
going in because he wasnt cooperting with the UN is a good enough reason. except we did so without the UN.
We never need permission to protect ourselves from a threat. Going in because he wasn't cooperating with the UN was A reason, not THE reason. What people don't understand is that there was TREMENDOUS corruption within the UN and the Oil-for-Food program. The French and Germans were getting millions of dollars in kickbacks from Saddam -- why would they want to remove him from power? President Bush tried to get the UN to act, but they did not.


no, but forcing democracy on them is.
Wait...How can you possibly force a democracy on a group of people? The only way a democracy can ever be implemented is with the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.


im was never disputing that. and for that matter, neither was Kerry.
he's saying we shouldnt be there. but since we are, lets at least get it right.
Get what right? We're doing everything we can to make Iraq a peaceful state. What more can we do?

Here is something that I think you will find interesting.




White House voices war on terrorism
The Clinton administration's top leaders took to the airwaves Sunday to trumpet a new war on terrorism, launched with Thursday's missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan.

Speaking on ABC-TV's This Week, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the attacks weren't just aimed at Saudi-born fanatic Osama bin Laden, but ''generally against those who were involved.''

Still, said Defense secretary William Cohen on NBC's Meet the Press, if bin Laden died in future U.S. action, no one would weep over ''someone who is that fanatical about killing innocent human beings.''

Also Sunday, Sudan said it wants a White House apology for the missile strike against a factory in Khartoum.

Britain, Germany and other European states backed the U.S. strike against a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum. U.S. officials said it produced chemical warfare agents.

President Clinton ordered the attack, and a simultaneous strike against extremist camps in Afghanistan, in retaliation for the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. U.S. officials linked those bombings to bin Laden.

The Sudan factory was destroyed, weekend reports said. In Afghanistan, at least 21 died and more than 50 were reportedly injured and the damage to paramilitary camps was ''moderate to heavy.''

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 425 adults taken Friday-Saturday found 76% approve of further attacks using missiles; 65% of the 447 adults polled approve of using ground troops. The margin of error is |/- 4 percentage points. Also:

The president announced on Saturday new steps to hit bin Laden's organizations by seizing any U.S. assets owned by him, his top assistants or their Islamic Army organization.

Clinton garnered more support from Republicans, who last week questioned the attacks as a way to deflect interest in the Monica Lewinsky affair said Sunday they now believe the actions were justified.

''I think the president did exactly the right thing,'' Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News Sunday.

The operation, code-named Infinite Reach, was born 10 days before the strikes, Newsweek says Monday, and was so secret that even people in Cohen's office didn't know.

In Nairobi, FBI agents investigating the bombing of the U.S. Embassy said they believe eight people were involved. Three of the men being held said they were sent to Kenya last year by bin Laden and sponsored by a Nairobi-based Islamic aid group which works with a Saudi financier.

Front Page News Money Sports Life Tech Weather Shop
Terms of service Privacy Policy How to advertise About us
© Copyright 2002 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

[/QUOTE=]


[QUOTE=USATODAY] A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 425 adults taken Friday-Saturday found 76% approve of further attacks using missiles; 65% of the 447 adults polled approve of using ground troops. The margin of error is |/- 4 percentage points.

Head, if that last paragraph is what you think is Saudi sponsorship, I disagree. Just because someone is from Saudi doens't mean that it is a governement sponsorship.

This was posted to highlight the "War on Terror." It started under the Clinton admin. My questions is, where are the Micheal Moores and the Martin Sheens during this attack in Sudan and in Afgan?


See the facts then and now. They are not far off. Yet the country is divided when it comes to who should order the attacks. Bush has proven that he will not let this type of terrorism continue. Kerry has only his word that he will not. If you look at his word, it's hard to understand what he means on issues and when it is this strong of an issue, I want who I know will do the right thing not someone who will say that they will and then not. I have only to go by his record. And he voted against the first Gulf War and we had global support then.

ToB, are you getting the feeling the rest of the people on this thread are just kind of stepping back as we duke it out?
im taking on the Admin all by my lonesome :(

(edit: nevermind. metalrepublican beat me to the punch. anyway, with a name like that, i think im outnumbered.)

well with that, i think im done. dont know enough about these issues to keep firing back with anything more than old arguments and we seem to have reached the point where its more a difference in opinion and interpretation than anything else. so on that note,
[shakes ToB's hand]
it’s been fun

ToB, are you getting the feeling the rest of the people on this thread are just kind of stepping back as we duke it out?
im taking on the Admin all by my lonesome :(

well with that, i think im done. i dont know enough about these issues to keep firing back with anything more than old arguments. we seem to have reached the point where its more a difference in opinion and interpretation than anything else. so on that note,
[shakes you hand]
it’s been fun
No man, stay and maybe we can learn from each other here...We've been having a good dialog...And when I'm in here debating, I'm not the admin, I'm just another guy with an opinion. :) (oh, but it's the RIGHT opinion...literally)

No man, stay and maybe we can learn from each other here...We've been having a good dialog...And when I'm in here debating, I'm not the admin, I'm just another guy with an opinion. :) (oh, but it's the RIGHT opinion...literally)

i was just kidding. if i were worried youd take it the wrong way i wouldnt have challenged you to begin with. at any rate, im out of time. ive got class in about an hour, and homework stuffs not done yet :p. ill try to dig up some more ammo to keep this going later though.

by the way, everyone did remember to vote, right? most schools started early voting already. got mine in yesterday.

catch ya later.
peace

If anyone else actually watched the debates...Kerry outlined a six month plan do draw the troops out of Iraq. I am positive that he described it too. At the beginning, Kerry only voted for the war because he thought that Bush would only take it to a certain extent. But after a while Bush pushed it a little over the line. That is when Kerry voted against the war on terror. Now, it will go to the extreme if Bush gets a second term.

If anyone else actually watched the debates...Kerry outlined a six month plan do draw the troops out of Iraq. I am positive that he described it too. At the beginning, Kerry only voted for the war because he thought that Bush would only take it to a certain extent. But after a while Bush pushed it a little over the line. That is when Kerry voted against the war on terror. Now, it will go to the extreme if Bush gets a second term.
Kerry may have told you that he wants to get the troops out within 6 months, but how is he going to do that? Leave Iraq in shambles?

What's the line that Bush pushed the issue over? Actually backing up his words with action?

What "extreme" will things go to when Bush is re-elected? You come in here spouting leftist bullshit without even having facts to back you up. You are starting to sound like Kerry himself.

If anyone else actually watched the debates...Kerry outlined a six month plan do draw the troops out of Iraq. I am positive that he described it too. At the beginning, Kerry only voted for the war because he thought that Bush would only take it to a certain extent. But after a while Bush pushed it a little over the line. That is when Kerry voted against the war on terror. Now, it will go to the extreme if Bush gets a second term.

i watched the debates. kerry said he would pulle troops out of iraq in 6 months. no, he did not describe how he would do that. bush called him on it, said there is no way he could do that. kerry said "blah blah, i said i would BEGIN to pull out troops in 6 months", which is NOT what he said.... i went back and watched, and he did NOT say it. sure... lets pull our military out in 6 months so those assholes can bomb us again, sounds fun. not only that, but he DOES NOT support our military. he called us 'the bribed and the coersed'. my friends serving in iraq really appreciated that, it sure motivated them on having kerry as president. made them feel real good.
that is the biggest insult to me and my husband, seeing as how, we signed a 6 year contract with the military, making about 20,000 a year (and that estimate is including the crappy benefits), just to be taken away from our families so we can serve our country. once bush took office, we got a raise, and military life was about 20 times better. HEY, i hope kerry fans are planning on making lots of money next year, so it can be taxed to take care of his 5000 houses he won't even be staying in. uh huh, he talks about tax cuts...... i like all his unrealistic plans, sounds nice.


f u john kerry

FLUSH THE JOHNS!!!!

meantime we let the Osama job to he Afgan soldiers.

This is a perfectly valid argument for you. However, when Kerry complains that we left the Afghan soldiers to search for Bin Laden and handle Afghanistan, it seems contradictory to me, since Kerry is also saying that we didn't train the Iraqi troops quickly enough so they could handle the problem.

So in one case, he wants the army of that country to handle their problems. In another, he criticizes Bush for leaving the job to the country where the problem was. Not that he left it entirely, as there are still many troops in Afghanistan. That's what I understand from it.

If anyone else actually watched the debates...Kerry outlined a six month plan do draw the troops out of Iraq. I am positive that he described it too. At the beginning, Kerry only voted for the war because he thought that Bush would only take it to a certain extent. But after a while Bush pushed it a little over the line. That is when Kerry voted against the war on terror. Now, it will go to the extreme if Bush gets a second term.

You do know that Kerry himself said in the debate it would only be a six month plan IF everything went perfectly on schedule, and he didn't expect that to happen. Personally, six months seems unrealistic. Kerry did correct himself there, so there's no need to quote him anymore.

And what does extreme mean? I think everyone agrees that what we're going to do now is train the Iraqi troops as quickly as possible and get the hell out. No one wants war.

Kerry's Iraq plans are pretty much the same as Bush's, apparently. As similar as they can be while criticizing them. He doesn't want to make any major changes.

Now now, no double double posting to really get your point across. Bolding it would have been just fine.

tMR

If that was the case, then we would have done so already and we'd be out of there. We wouldn't be wasting human lives for something so trivial.

Doing so before the 2004 election would probably be political suicide for Bush. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush or Kerry (depending on who wins) did so after it's over.

Someone needs to be talking about the right questions with respect to Iraq.

The question isn't, as Bush & co would have us believe, "are we safer."

It isn't "are the Iraqi people better off."

The question is:

"Could we have traded our international goodwill, 120+ billion dollars, and 1200+ US American lives in such a way as to get an equal or better result for the security of the United States?"

Not "are we safer" but "could have have spent the same and gotten an equal or better result elsewhere."

For instance:


Securing Afghanistan and finishing what we started there.
Hiring additional translators for the FBI, CIA, DIA, and NSA.
Giving the CIA the resources to hire and train covert operatives for actual HUMINT.
Dealing with other countries that sponsor terrorism or that might pose a threat--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.


Not "are we safer."


kerry said he would pulle troops out of iraq in 6 months. no, he did not describe how he would do that.



Your comprehension is startlingly bad.


KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.


Emphasis mine.

Securing Afghanistan and finishing what we started there.
Hiring additional translators for the FBI, CIA, DIA, and NSA.
Giving the CIA the resources to hire and train covert operatives for actual HUMINT.
Dealing with other countries that sponsor terrorism or that might pose a threat--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.


Afghanistan has held its first free elections already, and have elected a clear winner without any major attacks or other type of disaster. We still have 20,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan.

The intelligence agencies are working their asses off. They have a $40 billion budget to work with. Kerry has voted several times to cut funding from intelligence agencies in his "illustrious" Senatorial career.

How do you suppose we deal with other countries that might pose a threat? Each situation is different, and each requires its own diplomatic adjustments in strategy. One country at a time. President Bush never said that we would win the war in one year, or two years, he said it would be a long and arduous road that we would have to travel to victory.

Afghanistan has held its first free elections already, and have elected a clear winner without any major attacks or other type of disaster. We still have 20,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan.


The situation in Afghanistan degraded after operation Anaconda and it was only after we entered Iraq that we decided to fix Afghanistan.


The intelligence agencies are working their asses off.


Now you are simply shifting the subject.

Could we have spent our international goodwill, 1200+ American lives, and 120+ billion dollars to improve intelligence in such a way that we would be safer than invading Iraq has made us?

There is a massive amount of data that goes unprocessed every day simply because we lack sufficient manpower to translate it. The NSA is held in reverence by intelligence agencies the world over, the FBI does a decent job with what they have, but they lack sufficient translators. More translators = more documents and information translated = more secure society as a whole.

The CIA does reasonable SIGINT with what they have, but they lack covert operatives for real Human Intelligence. As was recently stated: We thought Iraq had WMDs because analysts spent too much time looking at computer screens and not enough time talking to Iraqis.


Kerry has voted several times to cut funding from intelligence agencies in his "illustrious" Senatorial career.


http://factcheck.org/article291.html



Each situation is different, and each requires its own diplomatic adjustments in strategy. One country at a time. President Bush never said that we would win the war in one year, or two years, he said it would be a long and arduous road that we would have to travel to victory.

I repeat since you don't seem to be getting this.

Could we have spent the same and gotten an equal or better result elsewhere?

Period.

Not "how much is this costing us"; not "are we safer"; not "is the world a better place"; not "did Bush mishandle it." (though the last relates directly to Bush's capability as commander and chief, the first three do not). The question is not "did we expect to be in there this long" or "is this really a 'quagmire.' "

The question is, has been, and remains: "Could we have have spent the same and gotten an equal or better result elsewhere?"

Could we have spent our international goodwill, 1200+ American lives, and 120+ billion dollars to improve intelligence in such a way that we would be safer than invading Iraq has made us?
Ok, since you seem intent on ignoring the contributing factors to the discussion, I will answer only your question.

No. There comes a point where passively collecting intelligence becomes a futile operation. Intelligence, no matter how well-funded or technologically advanced, will miss details. Period.

We can't be sitting on our laurels anymore in this war. We need to be out there being proactive, destroying terrorist networks and capturing/killing these guys before they can do the same to our own citizens. What happens when we get our troops out of Iraq? Do we stop chasing these terrorists down?

Our "international goodwill" means nothing if our people are being killed.

The liberal response to everything is just to throw more money at it. How can $40 billion NOT be enough? I think the solution is to fix the problems at their source rather than spending more money to gloss over them. No matter how much money you spend on the intelligence community, you will still have certain failures. Will $120 billion be enough to remedy the problems you state? Probably not. Remember that we, as citizens, only hear about the mistakes that are made; never about the successes.

Someone needs to be talking about the right questions with respect to Iraq.

The question isn't, as Bush & co would have us believe, "are we safer."

It isn't "are the Iraqi people better off."

The question is:

"Could we have traded our international goodwill, 120+ billion dollars, and 1200+ US American lives in such a way as to get an equal or better result for the security of the United States?"

Not "are we safer" but "could have have spent the same and gotten an equal or better result elsewhere."

For instance:


Securing Afghanistan and finishing what we started there.
Hiring additional translators for the FBI, CIA, DIA, and NSA.
Giving the CIA the resources to hire and train covert operatives for actual HUMINT.
Dealing with other countries that sponsor terrorism or that might pose a threat--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.


Not "are we safer."



Your comprehension is startlingly bad.



Emphasis mine.

Good point and here is the answer to your question. We could ahve achieved what you stated and there is only one way to do it.

Remove an unaccountable UN and replace it with an American lead UN. That way we can hold countries accountable and make sanctions work in the way they were intended.


tMR

Good point and here is the answer to your question. We could ahve achieved what you stated and there is only one way to do it.

Remove an unaccountable UN and replace it with an American lead UN. That way we can hold countries accountable and make sanctions work in the way they were intended.


tMR

But *gasp* that would be imperialistic and America-centric! That would NEVER work! ;)

But *gasp* that would be imperialistic and America-centric! That would NEVER work! ;)

I love the post ToB. heheheh... Maybe there is a way, hummmmm..... look at the new thread in the debate forum that i just made....

20 bucks to anybody who can define Kerry's position on the war!



Anybody.......?


The dude, I love that :)

I've realized that Bush can do no good at all in the eyes of the dems.

I swear, even if Bush recued a baby from a burning building , they would complain that he left a cat inside...

I've realized that Bush can do no good at all in the eyes of the dems.

I swear, even if Bush recued a baby from a burning building , they would complain that he left a cat inside...

And Bush supporters think the man has not done one wrong thing in his entire life. ;)

And Bush supporters think the man has not done one wrong thing in his entire life. ;)


Not hardly, there are many conservatives who will be voting for Bush they are strongly against the prescription drug plan for seniors among other issues where he has taken too much of a centrist approach.

I've realized that Bush can do no good at all in the eyes of the dems.

I swear, even if Bush recued a baby from a burning building , they would complain that he left a cat inside...

ain't that the friggin truth.

I've realized that Bush can do no good at all in the eyes of the dems.

I swear, even if Bush recued a baby from a burning building , they would complain that he left a cat inside...

Kerry cannot do anything right in the eyes of Republicans either so you're even.

Kerry cannot do anything right in the eyes of Republicans either so you're even.


It's hard to do anything right or wrong when you keep changing your position. :cool:

It's hard to do anything right or wrong when you keep changing your position. :cool:

well okay?

..............

It's hard to do anything right or wrong when you keep changing your position. :cool:

Bush modified his stance on gay marriage very recently I believe.

Besides, hearing other politicians accusing each other of "flip-flopping" is the height of hypocrisy IMO.

Meantime we left the Osama job to the Afgan soldiers
This is a perfectly valid argument for you. However, when Kerry complains that we left the Afghan soldiers to search for Bin Laden and handle Afghanistan, it seems contradictory to me, since Kerry is also saying that we didn't train the Iraqi troops quickly enough so they could handle the problem.

the difference is that the problem in Iraq is Iraq's problam. aside from cleaning up our own mess there, Iraq should handle it. part of cleaning up after ourselves is making sure the people of Iraq are trained well enough to keep it standing after we leave.
Osama, on the other hand, was our problem. he attacked us, we went after him. it was an issue between the US and al qaeda. and instead we passed the job off to the Afgans so we could focus on Iraq.

the difference is that the problem in Iraq is Iraq's problam. aside from cleaning up our own mess there, Iraq should handle it. part of cleaning up after ourselves is making sure the people of Iraq are trained well enough to keep it standing after we leave.
Osama, on the other hand, was our problem. he attacked us, we went after him. it was an issue between the US and al qaeda. and instead we passed the job off to the Afgans so we could focus on Iraq.
From factcheck.org:
Kerry: I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.
"Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.
It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded.""

And Bush supporters think the man has not done one wrong thing in his entire life.
Wrong. Theres policies that I dont agree with Bush on , but I do agree with him on the most important one.
Kerry cannot do anything right in the eyes of Republicans either so you're even.
I dont have anything against John Kerry. I just dont agree with him on how he would run the country.
I think he did a good thing in the 90's, by going to Vietman and helping to heal wounds there. I admit it is hard finding anything else that stands out to me besides that. Maybe you can look at his 20 year record in the senate and find something. good luck...