I have said this from DAY ONE

[trobinett]

What is a shame as that different tactics -- military ones that addressed the reality of the situation as opposed to political ones -- would have achieved the same in Iraq.

The sad part, we seem to be moving further away from a "solution", and with the left in this country mounting a "terror campaign" within our own country, things are looking bleak for all level headed, and freedom loving people's of the free world.

 

[nt250]

The sad part, we seem to be moving further away from a "solution", and with the left in this country mounting a "terror campaign" within our own country, things are looking bleak for all level headed, and freedom loving people's of the free world.

The left has been against this country for a long, long, time.

When Clinton was president he had his nutjob, whacko, detractors. But they were considered just that. The fringe. Nuts. Partisian whackos. And some really horrible things were said about the Clintons. I came online in early 1999 and some of the things I read about both Bill and Hillary were really beyond the pale. Really, really, cruel, horrible, nasty things. Accusations of everything from beastiality to murder. But it was fringe stuff. Nutjob whacko stuff.

With George W. Bush? It's the chairman of the Democratic party saying it. It's senators and representatives saying it. The hatred that is spewed at that man by mainstream, "respected" voices is so out of proportion to anything the man has ever said or done that it's mind boggling. He's the President of the United States. We are at war. And they call him everything from a chimp to the Anti-Christ. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[trobinett]

The left has been against this country for a long, long, time.

When Clinton was president he had his nutjob, whacko, detractors. But they were considered just that. The fringe. Nuts. Partisian whackos. And some really horrible things were said about the Clintons. I came online in early 1999 and some of the things I read about both Bill and Hillary were really beyond the pale. Really, really, cruel, horrible, nasty things. Accusations of everything from beastiality to murder. But it was fringe stuff. Nutjob whacko stuff.

With George W. Bush? It's the chairman of the Democratic party saying it. It's senators and representatives saying it. The hatred that is spewed at that man by mainstream, "respected" voices is so out of proportion to anything the man has ever said or done that it's mind boggling. He's the President of the United States. We are at war. And they call him everything from a chimp to the Anti-Christ. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Well said.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

1. There are no WMD's in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant but no threat to the USA.
3. There are many more tyrants in this world, why Saddam and why at this particular time?
4. A WAR upon indigents without political or religious justification acceptable to the masses of the WORLD in which we LIVE will be unwise and unending in our lifetimes.

I've said many other things but let these suffice for the argument for now.

Psychoblues

You're the only guy I know of who is gleeful that he has been proven wrong.

 

[Bullypulpit]

1. WMDs were found. Sure not in the stockpiles we expected, but they were found. Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Nor does it pay attention to the fact that Saddam had clearly constituted weapons programs and was seeking to build more weapons. Clearly our Doctrine of Preemption has helped.

The only "WMD's" found in Iraq were those left over from Gulf War I, and more of a danger to hose who would attempt to use them than to anyone else. Chimpy's doctrine of preemption has done nothing but destabilise the whole region.

2. Any tryant who is seeking WMDs and supports terrorism is a threat. If you cant see that then you are just so arrogant you are blind.

There is no credible evidence to support any high level, long standing contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, let alone the transfer of the technologies you describe. Never was. Despite what Chimpy and Co. have said in the past and continue to say.

3. Because we are fighting a war on terror. Saddam supported terror. He continued to ignore UN resolutions against him. He failed to comply with terms of the gulf war ceasefire and rather than verify to inspectors that that he was disarming he played games with them. In a post 911 world, its necessary to take out threats before they have the power to destroy us. If we wait for them to attack us again, we will have missing cities. Besides, anyone with have a brain realizes the strategic location of Iraq in the center of the Middle east and our militaries ability to use that foothold to continue the war on terror.

Given that Chimpy and Co's rhetoric has been stepped up to include "islamofascists" right up ther with Hitler and Stalin, you'd think they'd take the "war on terror" a little more seriously. You know, securing our ports and borders, securing our nuclear and chemical facilites, sending enough troops to Iraq to actually secure the country, raising taxes to pay for the war effort rather than borrowing the money from foreign powers not neccessarily friendly to the US.

4. HELLO!?! We have been attacked by Islamic fascist terrorists. What more justification do we need to take down regimes that support these terrorists?! What better justification is there then the fact that he is raping, torturing, and murdering his civilians, that he supported terrorism, that he refused to comply with interenational law, and sought to build weapons of mass destruction? Why the heck are you people so freaking stupid that you cant see what is so freaking obvious.

Again, there is not and, has never been, any credible evidence of the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda alleged by Chimpy and Co. Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda, and we were justified in going into that country and scraping it ou like a gourd. But Chimpy and Co only left the job half done before they haring off into Iraq for no readily apparent, or valid, reason beyond a desire to secure Iraqi oil-fields.

5. Simply because you keep repeating something doesnt mean its true. this thread is a clear example of you continually repeating your absolutely assinine arguments and expecting them to be true.

You should pay attention to your own advice and stop drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I can't say as I see it. I think after 9/11 Bush was looking for a gunfight and Saddam provided him an excuse. At teh time we had recently ousted the Taliban from power and had them hiding in caves and Bush, IMO, overestimated that seeming victory as "cleaning up" the Middle East was going to be easy.

In that regard, I think Bush allowed politics to override the opinions of his military advisors. But I see it more as a lack of appreciation for the reality of what is actually on the ground in the Middle East than any problem with showing up George HW.

Had Bush actually followed the advice of his commanders in the field, we never would have gone to Iraq. They knew where the threat was, and it wasn't in Iraq.

 

[Stephanie]

Had Bush actually followed the advice of his commanders in the field, we never would have gone to Iraq. They knew where the threat was, and it wasn't in Iraq.

Are you sure you MEAN the commanders in the field.....?

Or the armchair commanders sitting on the sidelines today....

Sheesh, just think if all those past President's had listened to the naysayers ?????

Oh well, you'll never change some people's minds, so why even bother????

 

[Psychoblues]

They don't have to lie anymore.

Very interesting thread. Please read it all!!!!!

Psychoblues

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Had Bush actually followed the advice of his commanders in the field, we never would have gone to Iraq. They knew where the threat was, and it wasn't in Iraq.

wow. You are really deranged. WHy do you ignore so much evidence? Oh, I know, its a hatred of Bush. Yea, the compassionate liberals, I have never seen so much vile hatred towards a President before.

Well, listen up junior chimpy, fact is the military, the republicans and the democrats, DURING THE CLINTON administration, all believed without a doubt that saddam had WMD's and he was a threat to our national security. The speeches by Hillary, Kerry, Gore etc, etc are bountiful. Do a google search before you post again and make yourself look like you"re on LSD. Hmmm, then again, maybe that would explain....

Oh, and riddle me this holy junior chimpy, do you think the entire war on terrorism is simply against al quiada, or does it include other muslim terrorist groups?

Bwahahhahahahhahahah,,,,what a fucking dipshit you are.

 

[Bullypulpit]

wow. You are really deranged. WHy do you ignore so much evidence? Oh, I know, its a hatred of Bush. Yea, the compassionate liberals, I have never seen so much vile hatred towards a President before.

Well, listen up junior chimpy, fact is the military, the republicans and the democrats, DURING THE CLINTON administration, all believed without a doubt that saddam had WMD's and he was a threat to our national security. The speeches by Hillary, Kerry, Gore etc, etc are bountiful. Do a google search before you post again and make yourself look like you"re on LSD. Hmmm, then again, maybe that would explain....

Oh, and riddle me this holy junior chimpy, do you think the entire war on terrorism is simply against al quiada, or does it include other muslim terrorist groups?

Bwahahhahahahhahahah,,,,what a fucking dipshit you are.

Well, gosh, now. They didn't launch a war of aggression against a sovereign state based on single source, cherry-picked, spun, fabricated intel now...Did they.

As for terrorism, all terrorism, not jus that of muslim extremeists...It is real, but the military, except under certain conditions, is not the proper tool for combatting terrorism. As Britain showed us, good police work, solid intel work and cooperation with international law enforcement and intelligence agencies is the key to interdicting terrorist operations. The military plays a limited role with special ops forces.

I should think you should avoid posting for a while. Constantly defending the indefensible policies of Chimpy and Co. is taking its toll on you, as evidenced by the unhinged nature of your post. Have a nice day.

 

[Stephanie]

Well, gosh, now. They didn't launch a war of aggression against a sovereign state based on single source, cherry-picked, spun, fabricated intel now...Did they.

As for terrorism, all terrorism, not jus that of muslim extremeists...It is real, but the military, except under certain conditions, is not the proper tool for combatting terrorism. As Britain showed us, good police work, solid intel work and cooperation with international law enforcement and intelligence agencies is the key to interdicting terrorist operations. The military plays a limited role with special ops forces.

I should think you should avoid posting for a while. Constantly defending the indefensible policies of Chimpy and Co. is taking its toll on you, as evidenced by the unhinged nature of your post. Have a nice day.

Snip...........Read The Rest????.............
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htmFormer

The Clinton Administration's Public Case Against Saddam Hussein
In June of 1997, Iraq officials had ratcheted up their obstruction of UNSCOM inspection efforts. They interfered with UNSCOM air operations and denied and delayed access of inspectors to sites. In September, they burned documents at sites while inspectors watched outside the front entrance. By mid-November, Saddam Hussein had demanded an end to U-2 surveillance flights over Iraq and called on American inspectors to leave Iraq.1 Iraqis also began moving equipment that could produce weapons of mass destruction out of the range of video cameras inspectors had installed inside key industrial facilities.2

At first, the Clinton administration adopted a generally reserved tone toward Saddam's provocations. "We believe that he needs to fulfill all the Security Council obligations and that that is an appropriate way to deal with him," commented Secretary Albright at a November 5 press conference with the German foreign minister.3

The next day Secretary Cohen held a ceremony unrelated to Iraq, but, citing "an unusual array" of journalists present, he also spoke on Iraq. "t's imperative that Iraq comply with U.N. mandates," said Cohen, but "the task right now, however, is to persuade them to cease and desist from their obstruction." And when asked what would be the consequences should Saddam not comply, Cohen said simply, "it's important that we not speculate what those reactions might be."4

Striking a similar tone on November 10 at the Pentagon, Vice President Gore stated that "Saddam has taken steps that interfere with the ability of the inspection team to carry out its mission." He added, "The procedure chosen to deal with this situation is to engage him in discussions in which he can be made aware that this is not a smart thing for him to do, and he ought to change his mind."5

But Saddam remained defiant. So on Friday, November 14, President Clinton and his top advisors met at the White House and decided to launch a public campaign to build support for a possible war against Iraq.


"Prepare the Country for War"

The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare."6 During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat."7
On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. "One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days." And he noted that Iraq "has had enormous amounts" of anthrax. Cohen also spoke on the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: "One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such -- one single drop will kill you within a few minutes." And he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill "millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms."8

"The War of Words Grows; U.S.: Poisons Are World Threat" headlined the New York Daily News Monday morning.9 CBS News said the White House had begun "a new tack, warning in the darkest possible terms of the damage which Saddam Hussein could inflict with his chemical and biological weapons."10 And in "America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs," Time wrote that "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them."11




"I say this not to frighten you"

In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today."

He asked Americans to not to view the current crisis as a "replay" of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, "think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you."12

Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."13

In Washington, D.C., November 21, Clinton applauded the return of UNSCOM inspectors that day (after a three week absence) "to proceed with their work without interference, to find, to destroy, to prevent Iraq from rebuilding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to carry them." He added: "We must not let our children be exposed to the indiscriminate availability and potential abuse and actual use of the biological and chemical and smaller-scale nuclear weapons which could terrorize the 21st century," said Clinton.15

"Clear and Present Danger"

On November 25, the Pentagon released "Proliferation: Threat and Response." A few things stand out in the report. In the section on Iraq, the word "terrorism" (in any form) is not mentioned. It is, though, cited in the sections on Libya and Iran. The report stated that Iraq "probably has hidden" chemical munitions, "may retain … some missile warheads" from its old biological program, and could jump-start production of chemical and biological weapons "should UN sanctions and monitoring end or be substantially reduced."17

Cohen began his press briefing on the Pentagon report by showing a picture of a Kurdish mother and her child who had been gassed by Saddam's army. A bit later, standing besides the gruesome image, he described death on a mass scale. "One drop [of VX nerve agent] on your finger will produce death in a matter of just a few moments. Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city. Recalling Saddam's use of poison gas and the sarin attack in Tokyo, Cohen warned that "we face a clear and present danger today" and reminded people that the "terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of some 250,000 people that they were determined to kill."

Asked whether Iraq had moved "any of his programs underground into these hardened facilities," Cohen responded that he didn't know whether Saddam had "moved these chemicals or biological agents and materials --- not only the agents themselves, but documentation .... So we don't know whether they've moved them into hardened shelters or underground bunkers." He spoke of Iraqi weapons as fact, not a probability or likelihood.18

By mid-December, the Pentagon had announced that all members of the military would be vaccinated against anthrax with the first vaccinations going to those "assigned or deployed to the high threat areas of Southwest Asia and Northeast Asia."19 At the same, time, Iraqi officials announced a ban on inspections of "presidential sites" and restricted access to other "sensitive sites." With the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan approaching on December 31, the administration decided that any military strike had to wait. "Dragging things out to get past Ramadan" is how a senior Clinton official characterized administration policy during this period to the Washington Post.20


1998

With the end of Ramadan on January 29 and Saddam still failing to comply with his commitment to the U.N. to disarm, Clinton officials resumed public efforts to make the case on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Secretary Albright flew to the Middle East to drum up support for possible war.21 "Saddam Hussein, armed with chemical and biological weapons, is a threat to the international community," she told journalists in Bahrain.22

A few days later, on February 7, Clinton, joined by Prime Minister Blair, devoted his Saturday radio address to Iraq. Noting the two were speaking from the same room where FDR and Churchill "charted our path victory in World War II," Clinton told Americans that we now face "a new nexus of threats, none more dangerous than chemical and biological weapons, and the terrorists, criminals and outlaw states that seek to acquire them." He warned that "Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapon," "has the "missiles that can deliver them" and "has the capacity to quickly restart production of these weapons."23

How fast Saddam could "restart production" was discussed in a 10-page U.S. Government white paper on "Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction" released on February 13.24 "In the absence of UNSCOM inspectors," the report stated, "Iraq could restart limited mustard agent production with[in] a few weeks, full-production of sarin within a few months, and pre-Gulf war production levels - including VX - within two or three years." It had a chart listing how many were killed by Saddam's chemical weapons in the 1980s. It noted that although inspections severely curtailed Iraq's wmd programs, Saddam "is actively trying to retain what remains of his wmd programs while wearing down the will of the Security Council to maintain sanctions." But, "even a small residual force of operational missiles armed with biological or chemical warheads would pose a serious threat to neighboring countries and US military forces in the region."25

It detailed the biological and chemical agents and munitions for which Iraq had not accounted. It stated that Iraq "provided no hard evidence to support claims that it destroyed all of its BW agents and munitions in 1991" and "has not supplied adequate evidence to support its claim that it destroyed all of its CW agents and munitions."26

The white paper also discussed Iraqi nuclear activity.

Under the White Paper's "nuclear weapons" section, it observed: "Baghdad's interest in acquiring nuclear or developing nuclear weapons has not diminished"; "we have concerns that scientists may be pursuing theoretical nuclear research that would reduce the time required to produce a weapon should Iraq acquire sufficient fissile material"; "Iraq continues to withhold significant information about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, and the role of Iraq's security and intelligence services in obtaining external assistance and coordinating postwar concealment."27

On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon. The president declared that the great danger confronting the U.S. and its allies was the "threat Iraq poses now-a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed." Before the Gulf War of 1991, he noted, "Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it. Not once, but many times in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary and even against his own people."28

Clinton furthered explained that:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm Former Vice President Al Gore, February 5, 2004-- Former Vice President Al Gore, February 5, 2004ericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Have a nice day......

 

[Gunny]

Had Bush actually followed the advice of his commanders in the field, we never would have gone to Iraq. They knew where the threat was, and it wasn't in Iraq.

I never have figured out why you lefty-types have continually, blindly made this erroneous argument, not to mention tailored the parameters to the point that if Saddam didn't posess nukes on ICBMs, and was not a threat to Boise, Idaho, he was no threat at all.

Saddam was a threat to his own people. Saddam was a threat to the other nations around Iraq (he only invaded 2 of them). We are bound by treaty to three of them. That reason alone is legal justification to destroy his ability to wage war.

There was no peace treaty signed after the First Gulf War. Just a cease-fire called, providing Saddam adhered to the demands the cease fire imposed on him. He violated as many as he could, as often as he could with each violation bein glegal justification to resume hostilities.

That's just off the top. There was PLENTY of justiification to remove Saddma from power.

That world politics dictated dictated strategy and tactics from the invasion up to current rather than actual military strategy and tactics is a completely separate argument from "justification".

So Bush ignored his military advisors. If you want to play Monday Morning QB, where would you like for me to stop listing Democrat Presidents who have involved us in wars and ignored their military advisors? Vietnam and Korea are two GLARING examples. How about Somalia? Bosnia? THAT little fracas Billybob got us into is STILL going on.

Removing international asskissing at the political level and trying to appease the left while facing the reality of fighting a war -- two polar opposite goals -- would allow for a strategy and tactics that could easily have led to a successful invasion (which that part isn't even in question) and a successful occupation.

When poltiicians -- Democrat AND Republican -- began presuming to make the tactical decisions based on their politics we quit winning wars. Simple as that.

However, NEVER forget that it is attempting to appease YOU and your ilk that has led to it. Back when we could kick ass and get the job done from beginning to end without a bunch of whining from the periphery and the threat of national implosion to consider, the politicians let the professional soldiers do their jobs.

 

[Gunny]

Well, gosh, now. They didn't launch a war of aggression against a sovereign state based on single source, cherry-picked, spun, fabricated intel now...Did they.

You're kidding right? Even Putin, who has no love for Bush, agreed that he posessed the same intel. The fact is, if we'd just hit the SOB there's no telling what might have turned up. We gave him enough time building up our force to move a bazillion tons of WMDs anywhere on the globe.

Fact is, he manufactured, posessed and used WMDs. He was continually defiant, and more importantly, continually evasive with inspectors. If eh had nothing to hide that just makes him MORE the fool for acting as if he did -- enough to fool the entire world, to include most of you fence-jumping libs who at the time were all gung ho and believed the same thing because even your boy Billybob said Saddam had WMDs.


As for terrorism, all terrorism, not jus that of muslim extremeists...It is real, but the military, except under certain conditions, is not the proper tool for combatting terrorism. As Britain showed us, good police work, solid intel work and cooperation with international law enforcement and intelligence agencies is the key to interdicting terrorist operations. The military plays a limited role with special ops forces.

Wrong. The military is the most efficient tool for combatting terrorism -- WHEN you let them fight terrorism without the arbitrary moral shackles that basically render the greatest military force on Earth ineffective.
I should think you should avoid posting for a while. Constantly defending the indefensible policies of Chimpy and Co. is taking its toll on you, as evidenced by the unhinged nature of your post. Have a nice day.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice since every one of your opinions is based on hatred of a political ideal and not any facts or reality.

 

[Gunny]

Had Bush actually followed the advice of his commanders in the field, we never would have gone to Iraq. They knew where the threat was, and it wasn't in Iraq.

I never have figured out why you lefty-types have continually, blindly made this erroneous argument, not to mention tailored the parameters to the point that if Saddam didn't posess nukes on ICBMs, and was not a threat to Boise, Idaho, he was no threat at all.

Saddam was a threat to his own people. Saddam was a threat to the other nations around Iraq (he only invaded 2 of them). We are bound by treaty to three of them. That reason alone is legal justification to destroy his ability to wage war.

There was no peace treaty signed after the First Gulf War. Just a cease-fire called, providing Saddam adhered to the demands the cease fire imposed on him. He violated as many as he could, as often as he could with each violation bein glegal justification to resume hostilities.

That's just off the top. There was PLENTY of justiification to remove Saddma from power.

That world politics dictated dictated strategy and tactics from the invasion up to current rather than actual military strategy and tactics is a completely separate argument from "justification".

So Bush ignored his military advisors. If you want to play Monday Morning QB, where would you like for me to stop listing Democrat Presidents who have involved us in wars and ignored their military advisors? Vietnam and Korea are two GLARING examples. How about Somalia? Bosnia? THAT little fracas Billybob got us into is STILL going on.

Removing international asskissing at the political level and trying to appease the left while facing the reality of fighting a war -- two polar opposite goals -- would allow for a strategy and tactics that could easily have led to a successful invasion (which that part isn't even in question) and a successful occupation.

When poltiicians -- Democrat AND Republican -- began presuming to make the tactical decisions based on their politics we quit winning wars. Simple as that.

However, NEVER forget that it is attempting to appease YOU and your ilk that has led to it. Back when we could kick ass and get the job done from beginning to end without a bunch of whining from the periphery and the threat of national implosion to consider, the politicians let the professional soldiers do their jobs.

 

[trobinett]

We should rename this country, "The Un-United States".

Betya we couldn't even agree on a flag now-a-days.

We need Jessie Ventura to be President.:firing:

 

[Annie]

We should rename this country, "The Un-United States".

Betya we couldn't even agree on a flag now-a-days.

We need Jessie Ventura to be President.:firing:

A sorta solution:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22693_Day_of_Rage_Sparks_New_Ideas&only

Who says there’s no innovation in the Islamic world? Responding to a very real need, vendors in Tehran are now supplying the raging mobs with combination flags—Israel, Britain, and the US all rolled into one. Really saves money on both flags and gasoline.

Iranian demonstrators burn a combo flag of the US, Britain and Israel during a demonstration to condemn Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks on Islam and violence, after the weekly Friday prayers at Tehran University. Several hundred demonstrators have protested against remarks by Benedict on Islam and violence, torching flags and urging the pontiff to make an emphatic apology for his comments.(AFP/Behrouz Mehri)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, gosh, now. They didn't launch a war of aggression against a sovereign state based on single source, cherry-picked, spun, fabricated intel now...Did they.

Trying to change the subject, eh chimpy junior? You accused the President of not following his commanders, and engaging us in a war in Iraq. I pointed out the military, the dems and republicans ALL supported ousting saddam. But then you have to go to your old tired LIES of the DNC, the lemming you are. Try an original thought once in a while, I promise it wont cause an aneurysm

As for terrorism, all terrorism, not jus that of muslim extremeists...It is real, but the military, except under certain conditions, is not the proper tool for combatting terrorism. As Britain showed us, good police work, solid intel work and cooperation with international law enforcement and intelligence agencies is the key to interdicting terrorist operations. The military plays a limited role with special ops forces. .

Holy shit batman. You and your anti war idiot friends are really fried in the brain. WHO is it that is thwarting every move this administration does to bolster its ability to use the CIA, and other secret style operatives and techniques and technology.

I should think you should avoid posting for a while. Constantly defending the indefensible policies of Chimpy and Co. is taking its toll on you, as evidenced by the unhinged nature of your post. Have a nice day.

hahha, sounds like Im getting to you. Dont get to upset. Yea, I know it must hurt when you have the truth stuck in your gut. Too bad, get over it. Now, try making a post with some VERIFIED facts, not just opinions like this one of yours is.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I never have figured out why you lefty-types have continually, blindly made this erroneous argument, not to mention tailored the parameters to the point that if Saddam didn't posess nukes on ICBMs, and was not a threat to Boise, Idaho, he was no threat at all.

Saddam was a threat to his own people. Saddam was a threat to the other nations around Iraq (he only invaded 2 of them). We are bound by treaty to three of them. That reason alone is legal justification to destroy his ability to wage war.

There was no peace treaty signed after the First Gulf War. Just a cease-fire called, providing Saddam adhered to the demands the cease fire imposed on him. He violated as many as he could, as often as he could with each violation bein glegal justification to resume hostilities.

That's just off the top. There was PLENTY of justiification to remove Saddma from power.

That world politics dictated dictated strategy and tactics from the invasion up to current rather than actual military strategy and tactics is a completely separate argument from "justification".

So Bush ignored his military advisors. If you want to play Monday Morning QB, where would you like for me to stop listing Democrat Presidents who have involved us in wars and ignored their military advisors? Vietnam and Korea are two GLARING examples. How about Somalia? Bosnia? THAT little fracas Billybob got us into is STILL going on.

Removing international asskissing at the political level and trying to appease the left while facing the reality of fighting a war -- two polar opposite goals -- would allow for a strategy and tactics that could easily have led to a successful invasion (which that part isn't even in question) and a successful occupation.

When poltiicians -- Democrat AND Republican -- began presuming to make the tactical decisions based on their politics we quit winning wars. Simple as that.

However, NEVER forget that it is attempting to appease YOU and your ilk that has led to it. Back when we could kick ass and get the job done from beginning to end without a bunch of whining from the periphery and the threat of national implosion to consider, the politicians let the professional soldiers do their jobs.

Not to mention his LIE that Iraq was a sovereign nation. IT wasnt.

Plus he ignores the fact that the middle east is in our interest of national security. If some whacko likd saddam gains control of too much of the oil, he can really cause us problems. He did try to take Iran, invaded Kuwait,

 

[Stephanie]

Not to mention his LIE that Iraq was a sovereign nation. IT was.

Plus he ignores the fact that the middle east is in our interest of national security. If some whacko like Saddam gains control of too much of the oil, he can really cause us problems. He did try to take Iran, invaded Kuwait,

LuvR......You can talk till your blue in the face, it won't matter....
Sad but true.......See what I posted above about the Clinton administrations talks about Saddam.....You notice no reply on that???
It doesn't fit into their agenda........

Their motto is Bush lied, people died.....
The hell what Clinton and administration said before President Bush.....
And their sticking to that and that's all there is too it.......

 

[Bullypulpit]

LuvR......You can talk till your blue in the face, it won't matter....
Sad but true.......See what I posted above about the Clinton administrations talks about Saddam.....You notice no reply on that???
It doesn't fit into their agenda........

Their motto is Bush lied, people died.....
The hell what Clinton and administration said before President Bush.....
And their sticking to that and that's all there is too it.......

And everything is Goatboy's fault. Chimpy and the GOP have had, essentially, one party rule since 2002. Everything that has transpired since then and is happening now is a result of the policies promulgated by Chimpy and Co and the GOP controlled Congress. This is a world of their making, and you willingly went along for the ride. But you still aren't happy. You see that the wheells are falling of the cart with regards to the occupation of Iraq. This Administration has failed, by almost every concievable measure, to actually secure our borders and infrastructure against further attack. And you blame Clinton. Is the cognitive dissonance created by the failures of this Administration, which you so fiercely support, more than you can bear?...Thus forcing you to place the blame elsewhere? This seems to be the case, and if it is, I truly do pity you.