Where do you think the WOT should be fought?

[kurtsprincess]

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?

 

[trobinett]

kurtsprincess ask`s the question:

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

Those that think bringing the troops home is the correct course for our country, have absoluting NO IDEA what the war on terror is even about, let a lone, would be able to come up with a better place to fignt it.

 

[Hobbit]

It's all about liberalism, and liberalism is about control. While liberals claims they're for all these compassionate and humanitarian things, what they really have is a fantasy land where they can control everything by being nice. They live under the delusion that they can control nature and never get hit by her wrath if only they stop polluting. They think they can control the foolishness shown by much of the lower class if they give them the right type of welfare program. They think they can control the prejudiced feelings of any populace if they only change the language. They think they can control the religious beliefs of the world if they can just let everyone know how evil their religion is. Last, but not least, they think they can control the actions of terrorists by being nice to them. They think that if we leave Iraq, stop supporting Israel, and just let the Middle East run its course, then the terrorists will leave us alone.

What they don't understand is that we have no control over many things, so we have to either deal with disaster or attack the source, because, once again, we have NO control.

 

[ProudDem]

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.

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

They violated the cease fire agreement each time they fired on our planes. This is a violation of international law and according to international law it is the same thing as declaring war. Therefore we brought war to a nation that had declared war on us. This is not illegal action according to international law.

 

[Hobbit]

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.

Saddam paid people who attacked us. He gave sanctuary to the only 1992 WTC bomber we never caught. He paid families of suicide bombers to encourage people to attack us and Israel. You've been told this several times, yet pretend it isn't true. Claiming Saddam wasn't part of the war on terror is like claiming that attacking mobsters isn't a way to fight murder rates because they only hire people to commite murders instead of doing it themselves.

 

[ProudDem]

Saddam paid people who attacked us. He gave sanctuary to the only 1992 WTC bomber we never caught. He paid families of suicide bombers to encourage people to attack us and Israel. You've been told this several times, yet pretend it isn't true. Claiming Saddam wasn't part of the war on terror is like claiming that attacking mobsters isn't a way to fight murder rates because they only hire people to commite murders instead of doing it themselves.

Here is the speech that Bush gave as to why we should invade Iraq. I don't see the reasons you list as one of them. This is from the horse's mouth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

 

[ProudDem]

They violated the cease fire agreement each time they fired on our planes. This is a violation of international law and according to international law it is the same thing as declaring war. Therefore we brought war to a nation that had declared war on us. This is not illegal action according to international law.

When did they fire on our planes? See link in my prior post. I don't see Bush using that as a basis to go to war in Iraq.

 

[Hobbit]

It doesn't matter what was in ONE speech. Bush had dozens of reasons, he just listed the ones that gave the best PR response, probably on the advice of Karl Rove. There were also multitudes of reasons for going to war in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, and the Confederacy, but just because a presidential speech doesn't contain them all doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[ProudDem]

It doesn't matter what was in ONE speech. Bush had dozens of reasons, he just listed the ones that gave the best PR response, probably on the advice of Karl Rove. There were also multitudes of reasons for going to war in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, and the Confederacy, but just because a presidential speech doesn't contain them all doesn't mean they aren't there.

Okay.

Was that too easy?

 

[no1tovote4]

When did they fire on our planes? See link in my prior post. I don't see Bush using that as a basis to go to war in Iraq.

They consistently fired on our planes in the no-fly zone, or are you just ignoring history?

And it doesn't matter if Bush didn't use that justification, it doesn't change the legality of the situation. Iraq had legally declared war on the US by violating cease fire agreements.

As for Bush using it as justification for the war, it was Powell who gave it as one of the reasons at the UN showing he had violated UN Sanctions as well as our cease fire agreements during his "hour of shame". Bush's speech was not the only one, nor did it list every reason that we went to war in Iraq.

 

[ProudDem]

They consistently fired on our planes in the no-fly zone, or are you just ignoring history?

And it doesn't matter if Bush didn't use that justification, it doesn't change the legality of the situation. Iraq had legally declared war on the US by violating cease fire agreements.

As for Bush using it as justification for the war, it was Powell who gave it as one of the reasons at the UN showing he had violated UN Sanctions as well as our cease fire agreements during his "hour of shame". Bush's speech was not the only one, nor did it list every reason that we went to war in Iraq.

Well, let me break it to you--I won't change my opinion about the war in Iraq NOT being part of the war on terror. Not that I'm not interested in seeing your reasons for thinking it is--just telling you that it is unlikely that I will read something in here and change my mind.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well, let me break it to you--I won't change my opinion about the war in Iraq NOT being part of the war on terror. Not that I'm not interested in seeing your reasons for thinking it is--just telling you that it is unlikely that I will read something in here and change my mind.

I have made no such assertion. I have simply explained why it is not illegal in any form.

 

[ekrem]

It does not matter if Iraq was invaded based on 11.9. or whether Saddam had to do some thing with World Trade Center.

History-writers will clash over this question for many many years.

What Iraq showed is, That America will go to war when it wants to.
Even damaging past alliances like the UN and forming new coalitions, based on actionism. "With us or against us".

I think this has made America to an incalculably power as it can hit anybody in this world. This would be the major problem for Anti-Americanism past Iraq-War .


America should have bombed everyone single stone in Afghanistan whilst whole Al-Qaeda structure was there. Afghanistan is anyway bombed land by russians. does not change anything.
In my view, Americans are focussing on Al Qaeda. And here when you went to war against Al Qaeda, then War on Terrorism had nothing to do with Saddam and Iraq.
but it doesn't matter as Al qaeda is now in Iraq focussing from Afghnistan to Iraq.

Bagdad is in islamic history an important city (caliphate) and therefore in Al Qaedas plns this city has a major weight in their plans. Based on this, i say you are in the right country to fight Al Qaeda, when you question where the War on terrorism should be fought. Because Al Qaeda will try to do everything to get this city controlled.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Well, KP, it looks like no one who opposes the war has answered your excellent question.

 

[xen]

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

Osama's house.

 

[no1tovote4]

Osama's house.

Got his phone number?

 

[insein]

Osama's house.

Which one? The one in Iraq? the one in Afghanistan? The one in Iran? The one in Saudi Arabia? The one in Sudan? The one in Pakistan? The one in syria? or the one next to your house?

 

[Abbey Normal]

We've already been to Osama's house. Next idea?

 

[USMCDevilDog]

I think if we left Iraq it'd be stupid, if we were to leave it should have been a long time ago, but now that we're in there, we gotta stay, we can't just leave them.

I do agree though with ProudDem about how Bush never said any of those things. Yes he says them now, but that's the thing, it seems like every time a new thing happens over there he changes his reason for being there and uses the recent incident as his new excuse just to ease the Nation into thinking that everything is ok, it really isn't. I just wish we knew the truth, because I know what they're telling us isn't the truth.