Can I ask you what is the difference between Hitler’s genocide of the Jews via gas chambers and Hussein’s genocide of Kurds via gas chemical weapons of mass destruction?
The only difference I see is that Hussein stopped at 180,000 Kurds.
Quote:
Tom (Trigger)
What is the answer then?Should we have left Iraq alone, not have gotten involved at all in the first place? (1991?)
Should we have left the UN (corrupted at the time) to take care of this? A country who was threatening us and our allies?
If that is the case, then we probably should have kept our noses out of Germany? Out of Russia and their activities? Out of China and their activities in North Korea? Same applies for Bosnia and Milosovich with his genocide?
By the way, this is a great debate!
Agreed…Iraq should have been finished in 1991. That was a 1991 problem. My point is it was NOT a 2001 problem. There was on thing and one thing only that should have been done then and that was Bin Laden. Bush declared war (which he never did get from congress) on any country who harbored terrorists….Iraq was not that country. I’m not saying that we wouldn’t have ended up there for other reasons but terrorism should have been or only fight at that time and at this time.
Quote:
Can I ask you what is the difference between Hitler’s genocide of the Jews via gas chambers and Hussein’s genocide of Kurds via gas chemical weapons of mass destruction?
The only difference I see is that Hussein stopped at 180,000 Kurds.
Nothing. I agree with you on Saddam being as evil as Hitler. But that happened in 1988. My biggest issue with Iraq and why we’re there is the timing. And the biggest reason I made the comment about Bush “forgetting” 9/11 is that the fight against the guilty party has NOTHING to do with Iraq. And the battle to get Bin Laden should have last until we got our man.
So, if you support the troops, support the decision to go after Al Quieda in Afgahnistan, but think it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq, then you are un-American? That’s the feeling i get from this (and many) of these posts. 9/11 was crap and we were right from striking back hard and popping them right in the teeth. In fact, we should have done MORE of it. Sent more troops and put out a bigger noose.
I still fail to see the Iraq 9/11 connection.
I am not liberal, but I think in retrospect the invasion of Iraq and the involment in the Vietnam conflict will both look like mistakes made by the American government. Or is every decision by the government in history a correct one?
Quote:
So, if you support the troops, support the decision to go after Al Quieda in Afgahnistan, but think it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq, then you are un-American? That’s the feeling i get from this (and many) of these posts. 9/11 was crap and we were right from striking back hard and popping them right in the teeth. In fact, we should have done MORE of it. Sent more troops and put out a bigger noose.
I still fail to see the Iraq 9/11 connection.
I am not liberal, but I think in retrospect the invasion of Iraq and the involment in the Vietnam conflict will both look like mistakes made by the American government. Or is every decision by the government in history a correct one?
Agreed. I guess that’s my point without the rage. 
I really hate it when you are considered UnAmerican when you disagree with your government. Nothing could be MORE American than being able to speak out against your government.
As seen on my favorite bumper sticker
“When Clinton lied nobody died!” 
I support the efforts in the “Invaded” countries but I DO NOT support your President. 
Quote:
Nothing could be MORE American than being able to speak out against your government.
You are correct!!!!
Even if I disagree with what you speak out against
Moderators: Why can’t we get a lock on this.
I did not know this was the Political Discussion Forum 
You are changing NO opinions by this or any political debate. The people who have the strongest opinions (mainly those responding) are not going to all the sudden see your point.
Let it go. These debates can go elsewhere. 
Quote:
then you are un-American? That’s the feeling i get from this (and many) of these posts.
Moss;
I’ve never meant for anyone to feel that way on my post on this subject. If someone said or referred you are un-American for having a different point of view on this subject than others, I guess I missed it.
Looking at the bigger picture of this war……Here is what I see.
The Mid-East has been a long time enemy of the US since our interaction with Isreal, making them our Allie. Terrorist organizations (Not ony the Taliban), but all Mid-East terrorist have been threatening the US or making attacks, whether it was the USS Cole, Marine Barracks, or US Embassies. All primarily due to our support of Isreal.
We announced a war with any country that supports/houses terrorist (Afghanistan: Taliban, or Iraq/Afghanistan: Al-Quida), plus many other countries.
Today, here is what I see:
The war in Iraq has turned into a Jihad or holy war. The extremist are flocking there to fight the infidels. As one brilliant man put it: They are at the “Woodstock” of holy wars. IF they kill an infidel, they go to their heaven. IF they are killed by an infidel, while trying to kill that infidel, they are going to their heaven.
It appears today, the resistence in Iraq is all terrorist and extremist. It appears that they are so occupied in Iraq, that since 9/11, no attacks have occurred on US soil.
Whether we believe it or not, our country, to me, appears much safer the past 5 years, then the previous 10 to that. During the Clinton Administration, we had a minimun of 5 terrorist attacks directed upon the US that I can call off the top of my head. Since 9/11, we have had nothing.
Quote:
Moderators: Why can’t we get a lock on this.
I did not know this was the Political Discussion Forum
You are changing NO opinions by this or any political debate. The people who have the strongest opinions (mainly those responding) are not going to all the sudden see your point.
Let it go. These debates can go elsewhere.
It’s general discussion. This is this place where it will exist. There was no clear concensus on having a forum to move political discussion to. We will not just sit back and dust every topic that turns into a political debate. Don’t like what you are reading. Don’t open the topic.
-J.
“Whether we believe it or not, our country, to me, appears much safer the past 5 years, then the previous 10 to that. During the Clinton Administration, we had a minimun of 5 terrorist attacks directed upon the US that I can call off the top of my head. Since 9/11, we have had nothing. “
I believe that nothing has happened out of choice by the terrorists. Remember, the ones responsible for 9/11 were here for 5 years before they attacked. And not to mention that the scale of 9/11 was horribly spectacular and would be pretty difficult to top. I hope the day never comes. But I would hesitate to give the current administration too much credit for the delay in the next attack. It’s not like they have foiled any dramatic plans.
Quote:
Quote:
Moderators: Why can’t we get a lock on this.
I did not know this was the Political Discussion Forum
You are changing NO opinions by this or any political debate. The people who have the strongest opinions (mainly those responding) are not going to all the sudden see your point.
Let it go. These debates can go elsewhere.
It’s general discussion. This is this place where it will exist. There was no clear concensus on having a forum to move political discussion to. We will not just sit back and dust every topic that turns into a political debate. Don’t like what you are reading. Don’t open the topic.
-J.
Ya see, we’re starting to agree already. 
Quote:
“When Clinton lied nobody died!”
I’m sorry, but I know of 19 soldiers who died in Somalia in a short battle.
What about the 17 sailors that were killed on the USS Cole?
What about the 257 deaths associated with the Al Quida terror attack on the US Emassies in 1998???
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that we are up against no small feat here. And it didn’t start just a mere 5 or 6 years ago.
We are going to be in this for the long haul. I just hope that you and I do see the end, when we are old and gray, sitting in a fishing boat, trying to catch a nice fish! 
Quote:
Quote:
then you are un-American? That’s the feeling i get from this (and many) of these posts.
Moss;
I’ve never meant for anyone to feel that way on my post on this subject. If someone said or referred you are un-American for having a different point of view on this subject than others, I guess I missed it.Looking at the bigger picture of this war……Here is what I see.
The Mid-East has been a long time enemy of the US since our interaction with Isreal, making them our Allie. Terrorist organizations (Not ony the Taliban), but all Mid-East terrorist have been threatening the US or making attacks, whether it was the USS Cole, Marine Barracks, or US Embassies. All primarily due to our support of Isreal.
We announced a war with any country that supports/houses terrorist (Afghanistan: Taliban, or Iraq/Afghanistan: Al-Quida), plus many other countries.
Today, here is what I see:
The war in Iraq has turned into a Jihad or holy war. The extremist are flocking there to fight the infidels. As one brilliant man put it: They are at the “Woodstock” of holy wars. IF they kill an infidel, they go to their heaven. IF they are killed by an infidel, while trying to kill that infidel, they are going to their heaven.It appears today, the resistence in Iraq is all terrorist and extremist. It appears that they are so occupied in Iraq, that since 9/11, no attacks have occurred on US soil.
Whether we believe it or not, our country, to me, appears much safer the past 5 years, then the previous 10 to that. During the Clinton Administration, we had a minimun of 5 terrorist attacks directed upon the US that I can call off the top of my head. Since 9/11, we have had nothing.
I didn’t see anything directed toward me, just a “feeling” I get from some of these posts and responses. And not from your post in particular, yours just happened to be the last repsonse in the thread! 
By the way, I treat these all as just discussions, I take nothing personal, unless someone goes out of their way to make it personal toward me, which is pretty rare. As Trigger said above, having the ability to argue about it and remain Americans and all on the same side is what being American is all about!
As for being safer because all the extremists are tied up in Iraq, I don’t really buy it. I think 9/11 was such a big event, it made security tighter, information gathering more inportant, and just made the issue all the more “important” to America I guess. Just hit the average American harder, and brought terroism to a higher level of awarness than the bombing of the Cole, the World Trade Center car bomb, etc. If Clinton or another Dem were in charge, I think our strike back would have been very similar. In fact, I think George W did an excellent job in the months after 9/11, invading Afgahnistan, etc. It’s Iraq where I feel an error in judgement in long term thinking occured. We could go on now for endless pages about different faction of Bush’s administration, pre-emptive strikes, philosophical thoughts on whether the goal was actaully destabilization of the region, the true long term objectives of the Iraq invasion (IMO little to nothing to do with Saddam or WMD), the role of the US in world policy (empire vs. equal nation) etc., but I don’t have the time, though they would be very interesting discussions.
IMO, it is difficult to evaluate the invasion of Iraq without looking at all these factors, plus many more. Going to war with a nation has many HUGE long term implications, it isn’t some rash decision.
But in a nutshell, I think 20 years from now history will show this was not the best idea our government has had. I could easily be wrong, but that’s my guess.
While I disagree with “Iraq invasion is wrong” crowd, one thing I know we can all agree on.
At least our soldiers aren’t coming home to be spit on by a bunch tree huggin’ pot smokin’ hippies!
My friends who are currently deployed and previously deployed all have one thing in common. They believe in the mission, and to me, that’s all that counts. Most are disgusted by the media coverage we are all influenced by. One friend put it quite eloquantly, “the media only strengthened my resolve to bring peace to a country that wants peace”. He is a medic somewhere in the mid-east right now. He recently sent me a picture of him by the helicopter he does rescue missions out of. Grin’n from ear to ear. This guy believes in what he is doing.
I hope our bickering about right and wrong doesn’t negatively affect the soldiers!
To all our troops!! 
Quote:
Yeap, he pulls out that little trump card every time he needs us to believe that we are “at war with the terrorists”….NONE of which lead back to Iraq.
Which “trump card” is that? If you are going to attack my views, at least give some actual evidence to support your case…which is a classic example of the straw man fallacy, BTW.
So far as can be told, you suggest that the war in Iraq is somehow not connected to the War on Terror. The US is now fighting Al Queda in Iraq, and they are the same people who launched the September 11 attacks, the USS Cole bombing, the Embassy bombings in Africa, and the attacks on US forces in Mogadishu. The last three incidents occurred while a Democratic president was in charge of foreign policy, and hence cannot be blamed on President Bush. I’m curious as to how the Democrat’s policy of the 1990s can be considered a success, as you never address this issue in any way.
Your reply does not address anything from my original post, so I will state it more clearly: the US-led invasion of Iraq was not done primarily because of links to the September 11 attacks. The overthrow of Saddam was justified because he had a thirteen-year record of aggression against other states and blatantly flouted UN resolutions that he dismantle his WMD programs and allow international observers to certify that this was done. Saddam did not do so, and it was necessary to neutralize him, both because of the threat he posed to regional stability, and to send a lesson to other rogue states (Syria, North Korea, Libya, Iran…) about what would happen if they continued to menace US allies and interests. This was succesful, but Democratic opposition to the War on Terror has since shown Islamo-fascists that the Democrats will oppose any efforts to overthrow outlaw states, which is why Iran and North Korea once more feel secure in developing nuclear programs. Again, in the case of North Korea, their weapons program was aided by Democratic president Bill Clinton, who allowed them to keep their “peaceful” atomic program. I’m curious to hear a rational response on this, as there is none now…
Before anyone trots out the “Bush lied about WMD” line, answer two things: first, WMD have been found in Iraq–several hundred artilley shells tipped with Sarin nerve gas. Also, Saddam’s capability to make WMD remained intact. Second, “lied” means someone knew at the time they made a statement that it was false–there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the Bush administration “lied” about WMD. Remember, the United Nations, French intelligence service, and Russian intelligence services ALL said Saddam possessed WMD and the means to use them. Arguing that the UN and French are no more than Bush supporters is difficult for even Michael Moore to rationalize. I would also add my own belief that September 11 showed us that box-cutters can be used as WMD in the hands of anti-American elements, protected by a friendly state, which the left wants us very badly to forget.
Another charge the left loves to trot out is the “Bush failed because he hasn’t gotten Bin Laden.” There were three major attacks by Al Queda against US targets (the first attacks on the WTC, the African embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attacks) while Clinton was president, followed by the September 11 attacks, whihc were planned while Bill Clinton insisted on either treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue or ignoring it all together. (What did Clinton do about the Cole bombing?) Since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been no major attacks by Al Queda against US targets, save Iraq where the US military is fighting them toe-to-toe. Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the Afghan-Pakistani border, and is largely isolated and unable to orchestrate any attacks like those of September 11. I would call that a pretty succesful record for the Bush administration. I guess by your logic, Trigger1, World War II must be judged a failure because we never got Hitler, either.
I’m also waiting for anyone to explain why it would be a good idea to withdraw from Iraq now, and what they would do differently in the War on Terror. As someone else astutely pointed out, if we withdraw from Iraq now we will be back in ten years fighting a stronger enemy than we face now. Islamo-fascism will not go away if we surrender and apologize, as many liberals want the US to do; it will grow stronger and more confident, as the Israelis just showed in Lebanon. The Israeli ceasefire there this summer is hailed by Islamo-fascists as a great victory for their cause, since Israel (under intense international pressure) called off its offensive against Hezbollah and its Iranian backers. This is the same reaction a US withdrawal from Iraq would bring, but on a greater scale.
The war in Iraq and the September 11 attacks are both part of the broader struggle against Islamo-fascism, which is an ideology fundamentally at odds with western values of tolerance and democracy. Former Israele Prime Minister Netanyahu got it right when he said that Islamo-fascists do not hate the US because of its support for Israel; they hate Israel because of its support for the US in particular and western values in general. Islamo-fascists would like to see a world where women are slaves, free elections unknown, and Islam the only legal religion of the land. There is no way such a value system can peacefully co-exist with the values liberals and conservatives alike hold to, and we must either defeat Islamo-fascism like we defeated Communism and fascism, or be destroyed by it. I only wish more liberals could see this, as Senator Joseph Lieberman and former New York Mayor Ed Koch (both liberal supporters of the War in Iraq) do.
I am going to post one coment to you left wing liberals. Your buddy Bill did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when 17 of MY fellow sailors died on the USS Cole. Many Al Qieda terrorists have admitted that that act and the pullout and non response in Somalia gave them the boost they needed to make bigger plans. I do not agree with all of Bush’s policies and decisions but retreat is NOT an option and its the Dems 1st choice.
Its things like this that make me wish we had a political forum. I posted this so people would not forget. Not to start another whizzin contest. Too many people have already given up. The left wants to give the terrorists the same rights as you and I from OUR constitution. NO WAY! Appeasement is not the answer, those who attacked us and continue to plan attacks agaisnt us are vermin and should be EXTERMINATED.
Once we have defeated the enemy we can debate the little things….get off the political grand stand and lets kick some butt.
?Thought you all might be interested in this forgotten bit of information………found it in the Ollie North trial information sent to me by my boss.
At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; “Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?”
Ollie replied, “Yes, I did, Sir.”
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, “Isn’t that just a little excessive?” “No, sir,” continued Ollie.
“No? And why not?” the senator asked.
“Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.”
“Threatened? By whom?” the senator questioned.
“By a terrorist, sir” Ollie answered.
“Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?”
“His name is Osama bin Laden, sir” Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn’t pronounce
it, which most people back then probably couldn’t. A couple of people
laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?” the senator asked.
“Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of”, Ollie answered.
“And what do you recommend we do about him?” asked the senator.
“Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.”
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The
Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called
“political prisoners.”
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State,
Warren Christopher, “insisted” that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an
airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by
many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
I started this by saying (in a round-a-bout way) that I am disappointed with the way Bush has handled the aftermaths and paybacks of 9/11. If everyone else is satisfied with the retaliation the Bush administration used, then so-be-it.
Thanks MO! How quickly the left forgets. 
Quote:
FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.
NOVEMBER 28, 2001OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987.
A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON’T HAVE IT.
I DON’T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO “AT UNC.” (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE’S WHAT I DO KNOW:
1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING.
2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K.
3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS — NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN).
4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS.
5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE’S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA.
6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED).
7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A “GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.” BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED.
SEMPER FIDELIS,
OLIVER L. NORTH
Quote:
Clearly, the message quoted at the head of this article is wrong in its facts. The Atta who attacked a bus was arrested by the FBI and extradited to Israel, not “captured by Israelis,” and his extradition didn’t take place until two years after Reagan left office. In fact, the Oslo Agreement itself wasn’t signed until nearly five years after Reagan left office. All of this makes it rather difficult to support the claim that Atta was released under the terms of the Oslo Agreement at the insistence of “President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State George Schultz” (which explains why this information “was missing from later reports”).
What’s puzzling to us is why newspapers — much less “US authorities” — should have been confused as to whether the two Attas were the same man (especially since one was fourteen years older than the other) or describing Atta as someone “suspected of” or “implicated in” a bus attack for which he had already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment ten years earlier.
Sorry guys, both are false.
I’ve been avoiding these political threads for a while now, but this one, in particular, is a bit shocking to say the least. Uninformed, underinformed, and misinformed people need to get their facts straight.
After the September 11th attacks (and there were four of planes, not just the two flown into the trade towers), Bush did not call for a war against Osama Bin Laden. He did not call for a war against Al Queda(sp?), he did not call for a war against Afghanistan.
What he did call for was a global war on terror.
It could not have been more clear that terrorists, countries that support and harbor terrorists, and those that interfere with the United States in their efforts to combat terrorists were all targets of this war. Those who would not aid us in our efforts were on the side of the terrorists.
Anyone remember this?
Nobody has said that capturing and killing Bin Laden is not a goal, however the structure of global terrorism means that the war will not end with his death. Terrorists are not an organized political unit. Combatting them is not traditional warfare against an armed and mechanized opponent as in conventional warfare, that is to say that terrorists are not uniformed servicemen subservient to a reporting chain. They are rougues… guerillas. General rules of combat and warfare do not apply, and the GC treats with them separately (and much more harshly, by the way).
The demoncrats continue to whine about our failure to kill Bin Laden, the implication being that the object of the war on terror starts and stops with him. It does neither. There are millions waiting to step into his place.
The origins of radical Islamofacism stem from the Israeli war. Political leaders in the arab world saw defeatism in their people and required a new source of inspiration to continue the fight. Appealing to Islamic fundamentalists, they found a source of motivation. Sure, Life sucks, but heaven awaits.
These new recruits had many advantages; no fear of death, religious fervor, a belief that God was not only on their side, but against their enemies. They cannot be swayed. They do not know defeat except in death.
The only thing that is in our favor is that they are too dirt poor to buy a decent pair of shoes, and could not possibly launch a meaningful attack without a wealthy sponsor. Because of the power structure in the middle east, that typically means state sponsorship. Eliminating state sponsorship of terrorism is at the very heart of the global war on terror.
I have to say, unfortunately, I agree with Bush to fight the “global war” on terror. I think we needed to stay in the fight back in 1991 instead of bugging out like we did. I have to say Somolia is a whole different story and we shouldn’t even go there with this discussion…That was a true mess we should have not gotten involved in. We tried to do a humanitarian thing and it backfired…I don’t too often agree with JJ or Tuck on political issues much, but I agree with most of what they have said…
Next….
Quote:
How quickly the left forgets.
I don’t have much to add here except a couple things first is Fish you are Soooo far right you are almost coming back to the left…enough said
Second Farmboy1 just so you know Moderators are in Green for their screen names…if you notice they are the ones debating.
I enjoy the reading…keep the debate up.
Krisko,
Dead on! I’m to the right of most, but way left of Fish. The Ollie North stuff Mo posted is priceless, not reality, but priceless.
Oops, gotta run. Thanks to Rumsfeld and G.W., Waters and Woods is on now.
Quote:
Krisko,
Dead on! I’m to the right of most, but way left of Fish. The Ollie North stuff Mo posted is priceless, not reality, but priceless.
Oops, gotta run. Thanks to Rumsfeld and G.W., Waters and Woods is on now.
As most know I’m slightly left to neutral, my politcal views sometimes are skued because of my job and my family. I have to look out for my family and myself first before anyone…and politics sometimes can’t meet those values or needs no mater what party…
OI gotta go to…thanks to Al Gore and John Kerry…I have to get back to work….
I’ve read everything thats been stated above from the beginning. I see what i call improvements on everything thats happened who evers been in office. First im with Oliver North, I remember the questioning that took place, i watched it. To me theres only one way to solve the extreemists desire to recruit new followers, send in a hit squad like Oliver North said when questioned what he would do to kill Bin Laden. If the free world did this swiftly and within a few weeks or a couple months at most these xtreemists would be taken out and others would be less likely to follow in thier foot steps. Heres why i think so, if these leaders are taken out fast then they can’t continue to organzie other followers. I’ll bet theres 100 of them right now that if taken out it would turn the tides of islamic extreemism. How many of the real population in all these countries would think and probably do this same idea and are thinking this right now. Why not? If these trouble makers were just put out of commision wouldn’t it make this world safter, thier the ones calling all the shots for others to follow and do the things they do, put a hit on them and take them out. After a few start dying i’ll bet they would change thier minds. If there was a hit on someone that wasen’t totally involved thats the way it goes, how many innocent are dying now that don’t want to be killed and are deemed just a number by the extreemists. They know who most of the extreemists are, why not start taking them out. It would take time to get enoguh of them. With what thier doing now trying to capture them and send them too court, its much easier to just kill them where they stand then capture them. If a few are killed innocently thats the way it goes, what are they doing to thier own population. Are the presidents of the free countries afraid they will have a hit put on them so this is why they don’t. Whats so glorius about sending troops over there to keep fighting on top of the table for the world to see its being done fairly?, they fight far from fair, put hits on these people and see what happens to the followers beliefs then knowing they are probably going to die befor they accomplish what thier main objective is. Will they then die for something they know can’t be accomplished. They accomplish these acts because they have time to organize thier plans and carry them out. To me alot of lives could be saved if we just hunted these extreemist leaders and organizers down and just put them out of commision instead of trying to capture them and send them to court. I know they have bombed who they think they have in thier grasp and this is good. I’ll bet if they were asked if they know who these extreemists are and where a few of them were right now the answer would be yes we know who they are and yes we know were a few of them are. I remember when the leader of libya, remembered his name, Omar Kadafey, had a hit put on him by the U.S. government. They flew over his tent thinking he was there firing rockets, they didn’t get him but killed a couple of his close family. You didn’t hear anything from libya for years, think its time to do it again? i do. Just take these guys out and the followers won’t be so interisted in following knowing that they and some of thier familys might die. What can be accomplished if theres no leaders. Is it called fighting dirty? what the heck are they doing? I think its time to smoke a few dozen to show them the free world isn’t messing around and thier thoughts don’t mean and won’t accomplish anything. Some would say its not that easy and i understand that its not that easy, but why wait until its a number one prime. Are these leaders so brave that they are willing to die for thier cause or are they sending recruits to do the things they see necessary. With them dead whos going to call the shots, the recruits and followers aren’t smart enough. I can only see positive results from taking the leaders out because there won’t be any of them to fan the fire. Does it make us butchers when innocent are killed like thier doing when we know the world would be a safer place to live. Are thier still rewards for the main leaders of the extreemists, yes there is but how many followers have rewards for their heads, put up rewards for the top 500 leaders. To me thier fighting too fair to try to put a stop to them. Turn the generals loose so they can get these people, to hell with politics, this war is against freedom. Put up very generous rewards for the top 500 and see what happens then, they’ll be afraid to move, it’ll be cheaper than what its costing now. Is my head in the clouds and is this reality at all.
I guess I pulled a Dan Rather……. information came from emails sent to me by my boss…… not familiar with Snopes.com and there validity but I’m looking into the validity of what I posted…..Sorry I misled anyone.
Man its getting to the point where i don’t know if i even believe this Jeff. I saw that hearing. I remember when they asked who this guy was and he said, none could pronounce the name. Whats so hard about saying Abu Nadil compared to Osama Bin Laden, i remember the laughing when they tried to say it. I wish i could see the hearing again. Oliver North was a dedicated Marine and was deemed a patsy. The eleat cia he was refering to were the ones responsible for the arranging of the arms deal to keep the comunists out of Nicuragua and Central America. He didn’t know what to say when questioned about what was going on because he didn’t want to betray his country and it looked like he didn’t completely know who was in charge of what, he was just answering questions. I,d agree with this guy if it wasen’t for the fact of how hard is it to say Abu Nadil compared to Osama Bin Laden, i absolutely remember the laughing when a couple guys doing the questioning tried to say it. Talk about making a guy wonder now
Mo and Dan,
Believe me when I say that we are in the same camp on most if not all of our values and beliefs. 
Discussion and debate are excellent for everyone. The best part of our exchange here is that we are willing to pause for a moment and at least look at other inputs.
With regards to Oliver North, he will always be a hero in my mind.
In the interests of fairness, I must note that Bill Clinton was not the only, or first, president to under-estimate the threat of Islamo-fascism, and the dangers of appeasing it. Ronald Reagan committed the same error following the 1983 bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. I revere the Gipper, but his decision to withdraw US ground forces following the suicide bombing that killed over 200 Marines served as a model for later Islamo-fascists, just as Clinton’s withdrawal from Somalia did.
Regarding the 1991 Gulf War, the first President Bush bowed to international coalition-building and “realpolitik” in his decision to leave Saddam in power. The Saudis, Turks, Syrians, and Europeans, for various reasons, wanted a weakened Saddam left in charge of Iraq. Saudi Arabia saw Iraq as a counter-weight to Iran. The Turks and Syrians wanted Saddam to keep a lid on his Kurdish population (killing over 100,000 of them in the process) so northern Iraq could not serve as a base for Kurds in Turkey and Syria fighting their own wars against those governments. (Ask the Kurds of northern Iraq if the overthrow of Saddam was a mistake.) The Russians and French did business with Saddam, and wanted to keep buying cheap Iraqi oil while selling weapons to Saddam. So, the first president Bush left Saddam in power, and stood aside in early 1991 while Saddam butchered thousands of Sh’ite Iraqis in the south and Kurds in the north when they rose up against Saddam. I regard that inaction as a shameful episode, as we encouraged the rebellions against Saddam and then did nothing to help them.
The end result was the 1990s charade of UN sanctions and Iraqi non-compliance with resolutions demanding Saddam disarm. The vaunted UN sanctions were evaded by France and Russia, who we know did billions in oil deals with Saddam. “No War: For Oil” was indeed the rallying cry for the UN and Europeans. Along the way, Saddam tried to knock off the first president Bush, paid cash bounties to the families of Hezbollah suicide bombers in Israel (so much for no links to Islamic terrorism) and allowed his people to starve while he built new palaces.
The US and international left usually blamed the US for the deaths of so many Iraqis due to economic sanctions in the 1990s. The real culprit was Saddam himself, who refused to comply with demands that he disarm. Essentially, the left opposed the overthrow of Saddam, and opposed punishing him for his activities. The only conclusion I can reach is that the left would be happier with a fully armed Saddam still in power, menacing his neighbors and killing his own people.
Saddam himself was no Islamo-fascist–he was a thug, plain and simple. But his continuing defiance of the US served as a rallying point for the radical anti-US elements in the Arab world, and his overthrow served notice that such defiance would no longer be allowed.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
