Do Not Stop President Bush

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
No. Do you think it was a good idea for Hitler to open a second front? I am saying Bush is a weak commander in chief. What could be more ass-backward than attacking the wrong country?!!

Speaking of ass backward.....you still promising that spanking....st8's been verrry naughty, daddy. :D :D

THE WRONG COUNTRY! How do you figure that? At the very least the Iraqi people are free of Sadaam now thanks to us.

Weak commander in chief, yeah ok. Do you think Gore would've been better? Yeah I guess he would've, we could've sent them a fleet of non gas lawn mowers and books on feng shuei(spelling).
 
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
I am saying Bush is a weak commander in chief. What could be more ass-backward than attacking the wrong country?!!

First off, Afghanistan WAS attacked, or did you forget this little piece of history? And aren't there soldiers still there? Sounds like you conveniently leave pertinent facts out in order to make your points sound better. BOTH were attacked, and the search for Osama/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has never ceased.

They were right for an abundance of reasons. There is not one good reason to have left Saddam and regime in power to continue their oppressive and threatening ways.

What's ass backwards is those that think a sit down with tea and crumpets with the terrorists is the answer.
 
And if the local police don't want to enforce the law, I guess we should throw our hands in the air and allow total anarchy.
hey jim, what a GREAT analogy!

let's see: if the police were not enforcing the law, you would take up arms and start regulating yourself? better yet, would you declare yourself the next sheriff and start enforcing the law AS YOU SEE FIT? i think you see where i'm going with this, and i'm glad you were the one to make that point! :laugh:
 
What's ass backwards is those that think a sit down with tea and crumpets with the terrorists is the answer.
yeah, that's just about the only option, right? :rolleyes:

it's a wonder that nobody ever thinks about what CREATES and PERPETUATES terror. i would swear it's right under your nose. tip of your tounge, even.
 
Well, forgive my absense. I needed a break. It seems my comment that W is a weak commander did not sit well with everyone. Ah well.

Well, forgive my absence. I needed a break. It seems my comment that W is a weak commander did not sit well with everyone. Ah well. Here’s a few thoughts for the grist mill.

As I already posted, we have squandered the good will of our allies, vast sums of money, and our military forces to fight Iraq, a country that posed no direct threat to the United States while the terrorists who did attack us were reorganizing and recovering from the Afghan conflict.

They absorbed the blow from the mightiest military in the world and they are not only back on their feet, they are launching deadly attacks throughout the world, have decentralized their command making a decapitation strike near impossible, dispersed their human, intellectual and financial assets, and, thanks to the antipathy to the US which now stands as the most hated country in the world, they are recruiting a new generation of terrorists. The King of Jordan warned that attacking Iraq would create 100 new Osama bin Ladens. I fear that may be quite true. Thanks George.

Do I think the war against terrorists will be over in two weeks? No. Two years? No. I’m not even sure we can win this war. How do you defeat an idea? You can’t capture a person, a city or even a country now and stop terrorism. Or even contain it.

No, I don’t think the war will be over soon. And Bush's oft-stated declaration that Iraq is the front lines in the war against terror is a load of dung. I live a few blocks from the Capitol. I am on the front lines in the war against terrorism. So are my friends in New York. And Spain. And Turkey. And Indonesia. And so is your family wherever you live. The enemy strikes when and where he chooses, is not a standing army that can be attacked in a conventional sense, has no borders that can be controlled, no king to surrender.

The first rule of battle is to understand the enemy. George the military genius said we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists “hate freedom.” What scares the piss out of me is that may really be as deep as debya’s understanding of terrorism runs.

Know thy enemy? Our commander in chief doesn’t know shit.
 
It seems my comment that W is a weak commander did not sit well with everyone.
it's ok with me. it's a free country to say whatever you please. lucky for us, the guys paying the bills here even let that happen.

but i am suprised that :scratch: isn't listed as :spill:
 
Originally posted by spillmind
yeah, that's just about the only option, right? :rolleyes:

it's a wonder that nobody ever thinks about what CREATES and PERPETUATES terror. i would swear it's right under your nose. tip of your tounge, even.

so we take OUR ball and go gome and everything is going to be all rosy? DUH!
 
quote from st-8;"They absorbed the blow from the mightiest military in the world and they are not only back on their feet, they are launching deadly attacks throughout the world, have decentralized their command making a decapitation strike near impossible, dispersed their human, intellectual and financial assets, and, thanks to the antipathy to the US which now stands as the most hated country in the world, they are recruiting a new generation of terrorists. The King of Jordan warned that attacking Iraq would create 100 new Osama bin Ladens. I fear that may be quite true. Thanks George."

saddams army is back on its feet? Really? as for the terrorist,they have never been in one place very long at a time. you just figure this out? the terrorist must be chased for if you stop the chase they will chase you. pro-active or re-active? I choose to be pro myself!
 
Originally posted by spillmind
hey jim, what a GREAT analogy!

let's see: if the police were not enforcing the law, you would take up arms and start regulating yourself? better yet, would you declare yourself the next sheriff and start enforcing the law AS YOU SEE FIT? i think you see where i'm going with this, and i'm glad you were the one to make that point! :laugh:

Absolutely not, but I can guarantee you some entity is going to take over and ensure that anarchy doesn't bring down the city. I would then condemn the city for failure to uphold the laws, and applaud those that stepped in to quell the uprising.
 
Originally posted by spillmind
yeah, that's just about the only option, right? :rolleyes:

it's a wonder that nobody ever thinks about what CREATES and PERPETUATES terror. i would swear it's right under your nose. tip of your tounge, even.

Scenario:

Terrorists are already out there. They are planning on hitting targets throughout the world. They've sent letters/videos to the press claiming future attacks. They've already committed acts that have killed thousands. WHAT DO YOU DO?
 
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Well, forgive my absense. I needed a break. It seems my comment that W is a weak commander did not sit well with everyone. Ah well.

Well, forgive my absence. I needed a break. It seems my comment that W is a weak commander did not sit well with everyone. Ah well. Here’s a few thoughts for the grist mill.

Once would have been sufficient!

As I already posted, we have squandered the good will of our allies, vast sums of money, and our military forces to fight Iraq, a country that posed no direct threat to the United States while the terrorists who did attack us were reorganizing and recovering from the Afghan conflict.

Please, our allies are right where they were before, nothing has changed. Don't believe the liberal hype you read in the local rags. Shoot, even those that weren't our allies are now lining up to make mends with the US!

Vast sums of money have been spent thus far on the war on terrorism. I consider every last cent spent to be well worth it.

The war in Iraq was quite necessary. Almost every objective has been reached. The miltary never left Afghanistan, and you'll notice things are quite a bit different over there now too. Yes, Al Qaeda and Osama are still on the loose. But now you have 2 countries that are better off than they were 2 years ago.

They absorbed the blow from the mightiest military in the world and they are not only back on their feet, they are launching deadly attacks throughout the world, have decentralized their command making a decapitation strike near impossible, dispersed their human, intellectual and financial assets, and, thanks to the antipathy to the US which now stands as the most hated country in the world, they are recruiting a new generation of terrorists. The King of Jordan warned that attacking Iraq would create 100 new Osama bin Ladens. I fear that may be quite true. Thanks George.

And yet all the while hundreds of terrorist plots have been foiled and hundreds of terrorists have been either captured or killed.

Do I think the war against terrorists will be over in two weeks? No. Two years? No. I’m not even sure we can win this war. How do you defeat an idea? You can’t capture a person, a city or even a country now and stop terrorism. Or even contain it.

You do what we've been doing all along, take them out one cell or one terrorist at a time. Ignoring them certainly isn't going to help matters. Many will claim it was either Bush or Clinton ignoring them to begin with that lead us to not be able to thwart 9/11. So which way do you think we should proceed?

No, I don’t think the war will be over soon. And Bush's oft-stated declaration that Iraq is the front lines in the war against terror is a load of dung. I live a few blocks from the Capitol. I am on the front lines in the war against terrorism. So are my friends in New York. And Spain. And Turkey. And Indonesia. And so is your family wherever you live. The enemy strikes when and where he chooses, is not a standing army that can be attacked in a conventional sense, has no borders that can be controlled, no king to surrender.

Currently, more terror strikes are being perpetrated in Iraq than anywhere in the world. You're also contradicting yourself here. You just stated a few breaths ago that we shouldn't have left Afghanistan. But if the front lines are in NY, Spain, Turkey... why would it matter where we are taking on the terrorists?

The first rule of battle is to understand the enemy. George the military genius said we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists “hate freedom.” What scares the piss out of me is that may really be as deep as debya’s understanding of terrorism runs.

Know thy enemy? Our commander in chief doesn’t know shit.

Bush will get briefed daily and will make decisions when necessary. His decisions will be based on recommendations from the miltaries top brass and top security advisors. I think they are extremely competent and experienced.

You can't possibly proceed to rule #1 without understanding your own country first.
 
Fact...Saddam had given groups such as Hamas medals and funds even went as far as manufacturing and stockpiling suicide vests for them by the thousands.
Fact...Saddam had illegally purchased weapons from asia under sanctions including the silkworm missile a low altiitude missile that could more easily deter the anti-missile defenses we had
Fact...The Iraqi people had been under UN sanctions for over a decade which left them lacking in food and medicines. These sanctions would have been in no way lifted until the brutal Hussein family was ousted from power and tried with war crimes and crimes against humanity. He wasnt going to leave without a fight and these people would have suffered under sanctions and under Saddam until someone had the nerve to do something about it.
Fact...Iraq is in the hub of a region associated with terrorist activities and was the best place for a foothold and a monitor of terrorist networkings as well as to deter aid from going to terrorist groups abroad as most funding comes from this region.
Fact...Should there have ever been a time when Saudi cut oil from going to america or boosted the prices too high there was reason to secure another oil rich country dependent on the US to receive oil from. As Iraq was sanctioned we had no dealings with Iraq in this matter.
Fact...the crimes of Saddam are many and on this case no need for further arguement
So I suppouse not have going into Iraq would have been a good idea...if you think starving a people under sanctions is cheaper and just as effective as going to war, if you think terrorists have the right to commercialize within their borders and to establish trade with others, if you think school buses in Israel should not discriminate against suicide bombers, if you think Saudi should be allowed to gauge the prices to no end without competitor(<--think about this one and 911 with the now extreme gas prices and the mostly unfunctional oil refineries in Iraq right now) and if you think rape torture and murder is just boys being boys.
 

Forum List

Back
Top