How has invading Iraq helped us win the 'war on terror'?

[kcmcdonald]

so don't be suprised when the gloabl community ask where were we then? the current US serving policy is going to have to answer with some accountability SOMEDAY. can't just keep going around doing what's 'right' when it suits us! that's not exactly, 'right', now is it?

actually it is. Because no country in the world can fight the war on terror. Only the Us has the tech, the personal, and the money to fight these bastards where ever they are hidding. Might makes right. History will judge us by who rights the history books. The world will judge us wether we fail or not. The left will judge us by the body count it takes to win. I rember that it was only 60 years ago that we were losing thousands a day to battle Germany and Japan. We lose 1, that's right 1 soldier a day and you guys scream bloodbath. Get over your selfs. You are not the morality police and thank God you are not the policy makers. Because if you guys were we'ld never have retailiated for 9-11 and we would have never toppled Saddam. Good thing Bush is in office and a good thing he'll be in for another 4 years. It takes guts and determination to affect change, and it takes blood to change history. Get used to it, not every loves the earth and all who dwell in it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

you don't have to be a gawd damned token lib to UNDERSTAND SIMPLE COMMON SENSE! if it were a snake, i swear it would bite you!

would you care to notify whoever you're directing this comment to?

 

[spillmind]

Because no country in the world can fight the war on terror.

the UK doesn't count? nowhere in europe or asia or australia for that matter? , i think it's time you took a jaunt OUTSIDE the US. no waffle houses, no gun racks, and how the rest of the world lives.

Might makes right.

please. maybe on the playground.

Because if you guys were we'ld never have retailiated for 9-11 and we would have never toppled Saddam.

simply put, this is a load of CRAP! use your crystal ball to find a way out of iraq, NOT PUSHING YOUR WARPED IDEALS.

Good thing Bush is in office and a good thing he'll be in for another 4 years.

better yet, you'd better be around here nov 4. regardless of the outcome... unless of course bush pushes the election over for months and steals it again without even ONE recount. but that's for another thread

Get over your selfs.

YOU are the one pushing the draft, and then turning around and saying it's ok to go in a murderize as soon as we think it is!!!

Get used to it, not every loves the earth and all who dwell in it.

are you getting back to what's 'right' here, or did you stray a bit?

would you care to notify whoever you're directing this comment to?

i'll give you three guesses. and the first two don't count

 

[preemptingyou03]

So you're saying it was bad to try to contain communism in any way possible, even if it meant, not supporting non-democratic regimes, thus the spread of communism?

Stop it, man. Please.

You point out that we had ties and interests with the Baathists two decades ago, but fail to mention some of our closest allies, (whom we fought and died for countless times last cenury) had ties with him RIGHT BEFORE THE WAR.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
better yet, you'd better be around here nov 4. regardless of the outcome... unless of course bush pushes the election over for months and steals it again without even ONE recount. but that's for another thread

There's a thread about this in the political races section, and this load of crap about 'stealing' the election has been THOROUGHLY dismissed.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Bottom line:

You want security, but anything Bush does (Patriot Act) you say its hindering our freedoms and "that's what the terrorists want."

You want terrorists to be captured and killed, but when we do so, you bring up that Osama isn't.

You blame Bush for not getting Osama, but when we do, you'll say he died a martyr and his capture isn't significant.

You stand for human rights, but overlook the values of democracy.

You wish for containment as opposed to preemption, yet blast our policy of containment in the past.

You say Bush failed us before 9/11, in 8 months, when Clinton was president for 5 attacks in 8 years.

You claim Bush lied, but overlook every comment made my a Democrat, every violation violated by Saddam and the UN.

You say we're inflaming radicalism, yet you don't understand... THAT IS WHAT WE WANT NOW. Our job isn't to win hearts and minds to TERRORISTS.

That's the future's problem. Now... we must fight! Casualties will happen. People will die. Just remember the night of 9/11 for a second... remember how you felt. It is a different world. And before technology from this EVIL (I know you hate it when Republicans use that word) matches up with radicalism and terrorists, we must take the bull by the horns.

Have we made mistakes? Sure. Is it the right path? Yes.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
YOU are the one pushing the draft, and then turning around and saying it's ok to go in a murderize as soon as we think it is!!!

Actually, Mr. Rangel, anti-war activist from NY, introduced the draft bill in the House, where it died a quick death-by-ignoring in committee.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
Bottom line:

You claim Bush lied, but overlook every comment made my a Democrat, every violation violated by Saddam and the UN.

Have we made mistakes? Sure. Is it the right path? Yes.

You accuse him of being partisan to one side only, so let's hear your non-partisan views.

What mistakes are you referring to with regards to the current administration?

 

[Annie]

There is no end to the idiots out there:

April 06, 2004
Clinton Report: Its Conclusions and Mine
Perhaps the most striking feature of the December 2000 national-security report's conclusion is its banality. It starts out by mouthing platitudes about how the world holds the US in high regard, relying on us as a "catalyst of coalitions" -- as if forming coalitions alone have any merit without an indication as to whether they contribute to success, or mire us in paralysis of endless debate and resolution issuance. Nothing specific about terrorism or even missile defence or any other strategic policy discussed in the report makes it into the conclusion. Instead, it closes with a recommendation to remain engaged globally and a warning to avoid our isolationist impulses, for our own good as well as that of the world.

It makes an oddly bureaucratic, bland ending to what actually is an interesting and well-written report. The report represents Clinton foreign-policy objectives fairly well -- and that's why this report reveals Richard Clarke as a partisan hack in his testimony to the 9/11 panel. In the Clinton administration's own words, terrorism, while a concern, hardly occupied a central place in its national-security strategy, as Clarke described. Clarke talked about how the previous administration had a laser-like focus on al-Qaeda, and yet that name never appears in this report, and Afghanistan -- where Clarke knew AQ to have come under the protection of the Taliban -- gets less than 300 words' worth of mention in the document's 45,000 words. The most prominent national-security effort presented to Congress in this report was national missile defense, the same program that former Clinton national-security aides say distracted Bush and his team from Islamofascist terror. Even when Islamist terror and its state support was mentioned, specifically regarding Iran, the Clinton team recommended entering into a dialogue "without preconditions" in order to normalize relations between the two countries.

In historical context, this may be understandable, although terribly myopic in hindsight. There will be much to learn from a careful review of this document, made so obsolete by four airplanes on September 11th. But it does provide a clear rebuttal to Richard Clarke's book and his testimony that the current administration reversed a superior counterterrorism policy from the previous one.

Posted by Captain Ed at 06:46 PM

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

 

[tim_duncan2000]

so don't be suprised when the gloabl community ask where were we then? the current US serving policy is going to have to answer with some accountability SOMEDAY. can't just keep going around doing what's 'right' when it suits us! that's not exactly, 'right', now is it?

They don't really have a leg to stand on either. France gave them a nuclear reactor (that the Israelis destroyed. Good for them) and lots of military equipment. Then, there were the Oil-for-"food" abuses, and the former USSR gave them who-knows-how-many tanks, planes, trucks, and other weapons. These are just the ones off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are more. So they can't really attack us there, especially when they were dealing with Iraq in ways that they probably should not have been well after 1991.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

I don't know you. May I ask: Is there a reason for the constant pessimism you display? You seem to be quick to look at everything in such a negative light and have a "told you so" attitude......



Love your avatar though:

 

[preemptingyou03]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
You accuse him of being partisan to one side only, so let's hear your non-partisan views.

What mistakes are you referring to with regards to the current administration?

The Bush Admin. made plenty of mistakes, sure. For starters, they didn't lay out the case strong enough before the war when it came to Saddam's ties to terrorism, and Saddam's history and violations regarding WMD. Bush should have gone into detail. He didn't. He simply said what the 10 second soundbit on your radio station would play. "Saddam's bad, he had WMD, he has ties to terrorists." He should have gone case by case, example by example. If I were Bush, I would have given an address every single night for an entire week before the war. The way Bush is running a re-election campaign, I'd be running a why-we-must-remove-Saddam campaign.

Secondly, they made it seem like he Saddam disarmed, he would be able to remain in power. Saddam should have been removed from power no matter what. Third, Bush should have came out and stated why a post-Saddam Iraq would be important to the War on Terror.

Fourth, he shouldn't have hesitated from pointing out the reason our allies are against us is because of financial and illegal ties to oil.

Fifth, they thought the Iraqi army would surrender thus being able to take part in a new Iraq military. This never happened. The Iraqi military just simply went home... while keeping their guns. And ex-Baathists paid them off to kill Americans.

Rather than having the Iraqi military take part in a new Iraqi military, (which would have crushed the insurgents early on) the Iraqi military became bounty hunters.

Sixth, Bush should have came out and said, "we will occupy you, for the time being." He should have flat out said this was an occupation.

And I would have tried to get the coalition involved more, such as Turkey.

So yes, Bush has made mistakes. But are we on the right path? Yes. Do the ends justifiy the means? Yes.

If 9/11 never happened and we weren't fighting terrorism and Iraq was just an individual war, rather than a huge part in the War on Terror, I would think this war wasn't necessary , although it was still of course justified. Anytime you remove a mass murdering totalitarian dictator, who funds and shelters terrorists, who has used WMD, and who claims he wants to use it against Americans... it is justified.

 

[spillmind]

There's a thread about this in the political races section, and this load of crap about 'stealing' the election has been THOROUGHLY dismissed.

it was NEVER recounted, not EVEN ONCE! but that *is* for another thread

You want security, but anything Bush does (Patriot Act) you say its hindering our freedoms and "that's what the terrorists want."

when did i say this? i know that being american these days anywhere BUT america paints a target on your back.

You want terrorists to be captured and killed, but when we do so, you bring up that Osama isn't.

you are on track, but off. i just praised how well our anti-terror efforts have saved lives. nor did i say this? maybe you mixed me up with someone else?

You blame Bush for not getting Osama, but when we do, you'll say he died a martyr and his capture isn't significant.

see previous.

You stand for human rights, but overlook the values of democracy.

that's a BROAD, sweeping statement. please point ot a direct correlation to what you've asserted here. it's also a HUGE accuasation.

You wish for containment as opposed to preemption, yet blast our policy of containment in the past.

your support of this precedent, MIND YOU, is something totally foreign to the US previous to boooosh. your assertion of 'containment' does not come cheap! i'm aware of policy in regards to the our safety, but i'm also mindful of the fact that we are not without blame by any measure.

You say Bush failed us before 9/11, in 8 months, when Clinton was president for 5 attacks in 8 years.

that's a happy typing finger(s) you've got theres. please point out my quotes if you are to slander me in such a way. i believe it was posted (in fact) saying that NO ONE is to blame and that is completely true.

You claim Bush lied, but overlook every comment made my a Democrat, every violation violated by Saddam and the UN.

i SWEAR this crap is cut and pasted from some yahoo! post. sheesh.

this is the most important thing you posted:

Have we made mistakes? Sure. Is it the right path? Yes.

NO! there is a bigger picture that you seem to not be able to see! we have not destroyed terror, but actually aligned terrorists against us! we are the hottest target as we type! do you even understand why that is????!!!!

They don't really have a leg to stand on either. France gave them a nuclear reactor (that the Israelis destroyed. Good for them) and lots of military equipment. Then, there were the Oil-for-"food" abuses, and the former USSR gave them who-knows-how-many tanks, planes, trucks, and other weapons. These are just the ones off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are more. So they can't really attack us there, especially when they were dealing with Iraq in ways that they probably should not have been well after 1991.

i wouldn't go so far as to mix apples and oranges here- i've never disagreed that europe had their own interests the whole time- many that i don't condone. but from heinous crimes BEFORE the clinton admin, through it, were you guys screaming bloody murder for those eight years for iraq? let me guess, bush was, right? oh man, that might actually be something i AGREE on!

I don't know you. May I ask: Is there a reason for the constant pessimism you display? You seem to be quick to look at everything in such a negative light and have a "told you so" attitude......

geez, if i seem pretentious, sorry about that. i just see the world in my view, and i try to convey it. some agree with me, but i prefer to convey it here as i've found intelligent opponents. am i quick to look at it negatively? ...hmmm you could be right! *__*

Love your avatar though

can't please 'em all!

 

[preemptingyou03]

spillmind, I wasn't referring to you, rather than the broader liberal hate-Bush more than hate-terrorists opinion.

Preemption has been a strategic policy for many foreign governments in history, and in the age of terrorism, where the enemy is an individual, it is a vital policy.

You call it "crap" when I point out who thought Saddam had WMD. You are just too blind to read quotes and understand them. My time with you is done.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

<b>quote:

it was NEVER recounted, not EVEN ONCE! but that *is* for another thread </b>


But it was recounted. One of the recounts was even done by the NY Times and a few other papers. Bush still won. And we know the Times just loves Bush..........

I love how a lot of libs go on about "you Repubs just can't get over Clinton", yet you guys can't get over Bush.....touche!

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1081483200&en=c1335494e903607d&ei=5070

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
it was NEVER recounted, not EVEN ONCE! but that *is* for another thread

How many sources would you like to prove you wrong?

Florida conducted an entire statewide recount - Bush won again
Because the election was so close (less than .5%) Florida automatically conducted a statewide recount. Once again, George W. Bush was verified as the winner. Despite this, the Gore camp, as well as the media, continued to claim that the election was "too close to call"
http://www.florida2000election.com/facts.htm

This is odd! Here's a county by county listing of results AND recount results. If there was never a recount, how are there results?
http://www.demographia.com/db-flbushgore2.htm

Here's a recount from judicialwatch:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/printer_881.shtml

More recount results. This is getting strange! I wonder how these fictitious recounts happened?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a0b41c46bbf.htm

Here's an article from St. Petersburg:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/110900/Election2000/recountvote.shtml

USAToday recount results:
Latest results from the recount of undervotes in the presidential race in Florida. Republican George W. Bush led Democrat Al Gore by 177 votes in the statewide vote, which includes new unofficial vote tallies reported by some of Florida's 67 counties that were ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to recount disputed ballots.

I suppose you'll do your usual and cry foul and/or conspiracy and find a way to say the recounts weren't official or they weren't legitimate. Bottom line - YOU ARE WRONG. Did you sleep through 2000?

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
<b>quote:

it was NEVER recounted, not EVEN ONCE! but that *is* for another thread </b>


But it was recounted. One of the recounts was even done by the NY Times and a few other papers. Bush still won. And we know the Times just loves Bush..........

I love how a lot of libs go on about "you Repubs just can't get over Clinton", yet you guys can't get over Bush.....touche!

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1081483200&en=c1335494e903607d&ei=5070

Awesome link. Like they say, it's not over till the fat lady sings, unless Mamma is the New York Times:

:baby4:


Anyway it's good they are still in disarray with an archaic liberal media message (four year later, lol).

 

[DKSuddeth]

Spillmind, through all of my time on this board I've seen alot of posts that pegged my bullshit meter sky high and your's would be some of them. But theres some things that you need to be reminded of and I'm going to do that right here and now.

Conspiracy theories are just that....theories. If you want to spout them all day long and only offer bits and pieces that have been talked about at length hundreds of times before without offering new, substantiated items then people are going to brand you with a tin foil beanie.

People that don't agree with certain things you say are not necessarily against you, they just don't agree with the things you've said.

It's not about us vs. them, liberals vs. conservatives, or democrats vs. republicans and to continue any thread or discussion for so long and in that manner is not conducive to any resolution to the issue at hand. It only makes the division worse and builds the wall higher to anyone seeing your points, or letting yourself see theirs.

It also makes it damn difficult to continue to try to support any of your ideas or theories as a 'token lib' when doing so subjects me to the same venomous vituperation that you supply to those firmly opposed to you, so if you ever fucking do it again not only will I rip into you so furiously as if the hounds of hell had been unleashed, I will do so with each and every post you make until you begin to question your own sanity. Do I make myself clear enough for you now?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so if you ever fucking do it again not only will I rip into you so furiously as if the hounds of hell had been unleashed, I will do so with each and every post you make until you begin to question your own sanity. Do I make myself clear enough for you now?

DK - I love you man!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
DK - I love you man!

Youre still not getting my bud light.