Where do you think the WOT should be fought?

[Gunny]

A lot of people keep saying "bring our troops home from Iraq" and while this sounds like support for our troops, and I guess it could feel that way to those who are saying it, I would ask them...........

do you have a better place in mind to fight the WOT?

Didn't you know? Terrorism will just "go away," like it did when Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorist activities.

It's a damned crying shame that 9/11 didn't teach enough people that the threat is real, and we need to go after them, not wait for them to attack us so we can react while the lefties are whining how come Bush didn't pull a rabbit out of his ass and circumvent it.

 

[xen]

shame that 9/11 didn't teach enough people that the threat is real, and we need to go after them, not wait for them to attack us

Hey GunnyL, I agree. We need to go after them, not wait for them to attack us again.

 

[theim]

If mexico invaded I would rpg them within a month too.

See, you are missing the key component here, namely that America is a free and Democratic society, your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories nonwithstanding, and Saddam's Iraq wasn't.

What your statement said is basically that you see no difference between the two. Ergo, little credibility is given to any of your other statements.

 

[xen]

See, you are missing the key component here, namely that America is a free and Democratic society, your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories nonwithstanding, and Saddam's Iraq wasn't.

What your statement said is basically that you see no difference between the two. Ergo, little credibility is given to any of your other statements.

All im saying is MOST poeple would protect their country, RIGHT or WRONG..because its their home, only they can change the fate of their country. I would defend this nation if CANADA invaded.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Okay, I can agree with you there.

BTW, Kurtsprincess, I did not mean to insult your question when I was arguing that the WOT is not in Iraq. I am sorry if it came off that way.

No problem......no insult taken. Just wanted to remind everyone that the question was about where to fight the WOT.....not whether the Iraq war was wrong and why we went to war. That's been debated ad naseum.

Just trying to get people's opinion about whether they want to fight it here or there.......the jihad had been declared long before 9/11 or the Iraq war, and a battlefield had to be determined..........and I'm OK with it being over there.

 

[kurtsprincess]

You're the ones who wouldnt support the troops IF you believed the war was illegal. :finger:

 

[kurtsprincess]

All im saying is MOST poeple would protect their country, RIGHT or WRONG..because its their home, only they can change the fate of their country. I would defend this nation if CANADA invaded.

Would you wantonly kill your own people in the process xen........as the insurgents are doing? Would you be a suicide bomber? Would you set bombs off to kill women and children and more of your own civilians than the Canadians or Mexicans?

Because that is what these insurgents are doing. They aren't fighting to defend their country...........they are just being T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S!!!

Patriots do not wantonly kill their own people. Insurgents and terrorists kill indiscriminately. Is that what you are saying you would do?

 

[ProudDem]

Dumbest.

 

[Psychoblues]

World Wide War On Terror. Does this mean anything to you?

Psychoblues

 

[dilloduck]

World Wide War On Terror. Does this mean anything to you?

Psychoblues

yup--means we put the necessary pressure on the terrorists where ever they are operating.

 

[ProudDem]

World Wide War On Terror. Does this mean anything to you?

Psychoblues

Psychoblues, I have read only this post from you. But I see you have a -35 in your "rep." Gee, I wonder why? I am guessing you are a democrat because the people on this board do not like it when anyone disagrees with them and so they will give you a "negative rep."

I have to remind myself that the republicans cannot stand dissent. It's why certain individuals have been asked to retire or have been fired. God forbid anyone challenge them.

Keep it up, Psychoblues.

 

[Psychoblues]

yup--means we put the necessary pressure on the terrorists where ever they are operating.

I've met and lived with the Iragi's. I met with them during the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Other than Saddam Hussein, I am not convinced that we had a single enemy there then or in 2001. Our presense there, however, has created millions and approaching a billion religious malcontents. Your statements indicate that you are also somewhat a religious malcontent. Listen to Jesus. He is the Saviour and your Way to Peace.

Psychoblues

 

[ProudDem]

I've met and lived with the Iragi's. I met with them during the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Other than Saddam Hussein, I am not convinced that we had a single enemy there then or in 2001. Our presense there, however, has created millions and approaching a billion religious malcontents. Your statements indicate that you are also somewhat a religious malcontent. Listen to Jesus. He is the Saviour and your Way to Peace.

Psychoblues

Psychoblues, I can tell I am going to like you.

 

[dilloduck]

I've met and lived with the Iragi's. I met with them during the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Other than Saddam Hussein, I am not convinced that we had a single enemy there then or in 2001. Our presense there, however, has created millions and approaching a billion religious malcontents. Your statements indicate that you are also somewhat a religious malcontent. Listen to Jesus. He is the Saviour and your Way to Peace.

Psychoblues

I happen to be quite spiritual so I guess you miscalculated again.
Democrats have created millons of malcontents everwhere.

 

[ProudDem]

I happen to be quite spiritual so I guess you miscalculated again.
Democrats have created millons of malcontents everwhere.

Another very substantive post from Dillo. I guess I should feel kinda sorry for you, shouldn't I?

 

[Psychoblues]

Another very substantive post from Dillo. I guess I should feel kinda sorry for you, shouldn't I?

Please don't, ProudDem,

Save your sympathy for those who hear but will not not see, those who listen but will not comprehend, and those who know but will not relent.

Psychoblues

 

[ProudDem]

Please don't, ProudDem,

Save your sympathy for those who hear but will not not see, those who listen but will not comprehend, and those who know but will not relent.

Psychoblues

Okay.

 

[dilloduck]

Another very substantive post from Dillo. I guess I should feel kinda sorry for you, shouldn't I?

If you're pity for me is anything like your pity for the troops--PLEASE stuff it.

 

[ProudDem]

He didn't leave that out, Bush was not the only person in the administration talking about this. Colin Powell, in front of the UN, made this case as well as the WMD case that we later found to be a false tiger. That you choose to forget that there is more than one person in the administration and that this argument was made before we went into Iraq doesn't make it true, it simply means you conveniently "forget" inconvenient facts.

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'
Tuesday, August 23, 2005; Posted: 10:44 a.m. EDT (14:44 GMT)

(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program pieced together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

Powell's speech, delivered on February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html

So Colin Powell is fed incorrect intelligence, which makes us look like fools, and yet George Tenet received the highest civilian award--The Medal of Freedom. I truly believe that that award was for taking the fall and for providing him with the intelligence he wanted, no matter now wrong it was.

Wilkerson is not a political appointee and has NO politcal agenda. One of my friends was a special assistant to Colin Powell at the time of Powell's presentation. She is a republican, and was the one that told me that Wilkerson had no agenda in being part of the documentary. Just FYI.

 

[OCA]

LOL

So when did Saddam Hussein attack us again? Or threaten us?

To me, the war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, at least not by the definition Bush used after 9/11.

Doesn't matter Sparky, Bush clearly stated that any country that harbors, aides or helps terrorists in anyway is on the chopping block, Sadaam was factually and without argument all 3 of those.