Jump to content

A moment


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Radagast
Look for the WMD's in the Beqaa valley, you won't be disappointed.

Sorry, I'll spot you this one.  The Beqaa valley is in the deserts of Syria.

You may be right Loki. It has long been expected that Isreal will plant one of their own nukes in Syria in order to have a reason to attack them and it would also somehow justify the Iraqi occupation too... Perfect!

I also have a theory that Rafik Hariri was killed by Mossad. After all, who had the most to gain out of turmoil in Lebanon.

I'm sure you'll give as much credit to my theories as I give to your's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't believe you people hate Bush so much that you cheer for a disaster of catastrophic proportions, just so you can throw accusations.

To satisfy your quiz, I'll let you select your own answer. (Much like you selectively choose your own facts.)

But just for fun, I'll take B. Seems like the Michael Moorish answer you were looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be right Loki. It has long been expected that Isreal will plant one of their own nukes in Syria in order to have a reason to attack them and it would also somehow justify the Iraqi occupation too... Perfect!

I also have a theory that Rafik Hariri was killed by Mossad. After all, who had the most to gain out of turmoil in Lebanon. 

I'm sure you'll give as much credit to my theories as I give to your's.

We both know the trouble with theories and opinions, but the whole Israeli/Palestine thing has me puzzled. Without question, our attitudes towards Israel creates trouble within the Arab world, but then, when the Israelis pull out of Gaza and leave it to Palestine they burn the synagogues (4 today.) Unfortunately, I think this one has more righteous individuals than groups. Someday maybe those cooler heads can prevail, and a reasonable solution be reached.

But, Rad, you know my strong suit is not optimism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
I can't believe you people hate Bush so much that you cheer for a disaster of catastrophic proportions, just so you can throw accusations.

To satisfy your quiz, I'll let you select your own answer.  (Much like you selectively choose your own facts.)

But just for fun, I'll take B.  Seems like the Michael Moorish answer you were looking for.

Wow, I'm impressed !! A dialog going on here that requires a touch of intellect !!

Let me throw in my 2 cents here. Clinton was president for 8 years and money to reconstruct the levee system was proposed each year in the federal budget, and was cut from the budget each of those 8 years. You don't hear the Dems talking about that . I don't think Clinton likes blacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you people hate Bush so much that you cheer for a disaster of catastrophic proportions, just so you can throw accusations.

I can't believe that you want to be right so much that you could, by any stretch of the imagination, interpret anything I've said here as cheering for a disaster. How dare you!

Like all Americans, I wish this never happened and I am saddened by the human misery it has caused. However that doesn't suddenly make Bush an admirable, competent leader in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned he wasn't before and his actions during this tragedy have only confirmed my original opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but I'm much better at what I do than he is at what he does. And I'll bet I know which one of us has a clearer conscience....

What are you better at? Telling us John F. Kerry or Al "I invented the internet" Gore would have handled Terrorism and Hurricane Katrina better than Bush. You're kidding right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be right Loki. It has long been expected that Isreal will plant one of their own nukes in Syria in order to have a reason to attack them and it would also somehow justify the Iraqi occupation too... Perfect!

I also have a theory that Rafik Hariri was killed by Mossad. After all, who had the most to gain out of turmoil in Lebanon. 

I'm sure you'll give as much credit to my theories as I give to your's.

Oh yeah the Syrians are innocent. What an a** you are Radagast. You don't have to plant anything there, Syria has long been one of the great supporters and exporters of terrorism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If now is not the time to point blame for this administration, when is?  After they lead us into a war based on lies?  After they begin to erode our nation's reputation with the rest of the world?  After they sign over most of this country to big corporations and the oil industry?  When?  When will be the right time?  When they're out of office and have left the debris of their greed and incompetence behind?

This latest debacle is just another example of government gone stupid. 

You have your opinion and I have mine.  I'm sure I can't change your mind and believe me, I have no intention of changing mine.  That's one freedom they haven't managed to remove . . . yet.

War based on lies? How many times do you need to get attacked before you do something? Why don't you ask the Clinton Administration. How many times did Clinton waste the chance to take out bin Laden? 1st WTC attack, Somalia, two U.S. Embassies, U.S.S. Cole, etc just to name a few.

Maybe Sadam didn't really gas the Kurds, wasn't working on WMD's, or supporting terrorism among all of his other wonderful projects. He's really a sweet heart and the Iraqi people were all living the good life when he was in power.

Maybe he was too afraid or too busy with the BJs.

Erode our nation's reputation? The US has done more for the world in it's short existence than any other nation in history. But I guess you would prefer to wait until we have to fight the war on terrorism on US soil. Maybe then the rest of the countries in the world will care about us and come to our aid. Like they have with the Hurricane Katrina disaster right?

Come on Curious, wake up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:(

I can't believe that you want to be right so much that you could, by any stretch of the imagination, interpret anything I've said here as cheering for a disaster. How dare you!

Like all Americans, I wish this never happened and I am saddened by the human misery it has caused. However that doesn't suddenly make Bush an admirable, competent leader in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned he wasn't before and his actions during this tragedy have only confirmed my original opinion.

:angry::angry: WOW YOU ALL POST ABOUT THIS LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT! AND SOME MITE! BUT YOU DO NOT" SEE YOUR OWN PROBLEM IN YOUR BACK YARD! why won't you look at the dump? its bigger than that storm and is killing lots of people now! and will for years and years to come!just living near it or working next to it" will kill ya but you don't care!and like a big bomb it will go off someday!!!!! wake up!!!!!!!your mayor your gov and pres " DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU! THE STORM PROBLEMS WILL WORK OUT SOME DAY" BUT ITS OVER TIME TO REBUILD! NOW THINK HOW TO HELP THEASE PEOPLE! HELP NOW!!!!! OH STOP STOP FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER AND FIND A WAY TO FIX YOUR TOWNS PROBLEMS! AND BE HONEST WITH YOUR SELF ABOUT IT!!!!! :angry:
Link to post
Share on other sites
War based on lies? How many times do you need to get attacked before you do something? Why don't you ask the Clinton Administration.  How many times did Clinton waste the chance to take out bin Laden?  1st WTC attack, Somalia, two U.S. Embassies, U.S.S. Cole, etc just to name a few.

Maybe Sadam didn't really gas the Kurds, wasn't working on WMD's, or supporting terrorism among all of his other wonderful projects.  He's really a sweet heart and the Iraqi people were all living the good life when he was in power.     

Maybe he was too afraid or too busy with the BJs.

Erode our nation's reputation?  The US has done more for the world in it's short existence than any other nation in history.  But I guess you would prefer to wait until we have to fight the war on terrorism on US soil.  Maybe then the rest of the countries in the world will care about us and come to our aid.  Like they have with the Hurricane Katrina disaster right?

Come on Curious, wake up.

You can utilize all the rhetoric at your disposal to rationalize the war in Iraq, but the fact remains: the President of the United States of America went before the United States Congress and the American public and made his case for war based on the conjecture that Sudam was manufacturing and storing weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie!

Nobody is ready to give Sudam the Nobel Humanitarian Award, but there are dozens of dictators around the world who are more of a danger to this country than he is. I think Bushy just thought our troops would roll in there and have it done with in short order and he would be remembered as a successful war president. Obviously he was wrong---again.

I hope you saw Colin Powell's recent interview in which he admits being duped by the president and Rumsfeld; and agonizes over the fact that his own legacy will be forever tarnished by this war of lies. One can only hope that Bush's place in history is tainted by the same tarnish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, I'm impressed !!  A dialog going on here that requires a touch of intellect !!

  Let me throw in my 2 cents here.  Clinton was president for 8 years and money to reconstruct the levee system was proposed each year in the federal budget, and was cut from the budget each of those 8 years. You don't hear the Dems talking about that .  I don't think Clinton likes blacks.

I'll see your 2 cents and raise you a nickel.

It's not the President who cuts appropriations, it's the Congress. And for 6 of Clinton's 8 years, guess who controlled both houses----the Republicans!

I'm sure that levee restructure funding was appropriated in the Reagan and Papa Bush eras, too. You don't hear the Republicans talking about that. I don't think Republicans like anyone---except other Republicans. (Just kidding.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
We both know the trouble with theories and opinions, but the whole Israeli/Palestine thing has me puzzled.  Without question, our attitudes towards Israel creates trouble within the Arab world, but then, when the Israelis pull out of Gaza and leave it to Palestine they burn the synagogues (4 today.)  Unfortunately, I think this one has more righteous individuals than groups.  Someday maybe those cooler heads can prevail, and a reasonable solution be reached.

But, Rad, you know my strong suit is not optimism.

I have roasted President Bush many times on this board so in all fairness I must say that I was happy to see the President step up to the mat and take responsibility for much of the confusuion over the relief effort on the Gulf coast. Its the first time I've ever seen him say that his Administration screwed up. Considering how he is and how he has always dealt with failures like this by blaming others, it took a lot of guts.

.... no, I'm not joking, I mean it.. it was refreshing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surrealist, to quote my favorite American, "there you go again."

If you want to talk appropriations, let's talk. The Army Corps of Engineers received 1.9 BILLION dollars for projects within the state of Louisiana, a very distant second was California at less than 1.4 billion. Who decides how that money is spent, and what projects get done? I'm pretty sure Presidents do not make that call, not Bush, not Clinton. The funding for these projects had, in fact, increased under Bush; more money spent during Bush's five years than similar time frame of Clinton's administration. To be clear, this was not Clinton's fault either, just stating a fact.

Perhaps local officials need to take a hard look at prioritizing these projects, perhaps rebuilding the marsh lands would be money better spent.

As for this notion that this war was based on a lie, come off it. Were tens of thousands of Kurds killed in short order in the early 90's? Yes or no? Do you think he shot them all, or perhaps he used a more efficient killing method? I hold to my theory that they are being hidden in Syria, you don't have to believe me, it is only my opinion. But, since you seem to need to be shaken from your naivete, let me ask you, if Hussein had the ability to deliver this type of weapon to a US military base or US city, would he use it?

As for the Nobel Peace Prize, no. We wouldn't have given it to Saddam, we were busy giving it to much more deserving types, like Yasser Arafat and the UN. Oh, and let us not forget Jimmy Carter, who was dispatched to N. Korea to broker a deal about NUCULAR weapons. How's that one working out for you, I'm not so thrilled myself, but we have indeed differed in the past.

Finally, no, maybe you didn't cheer for Katrina to happen, but you certainly viewed it as an opportunity. You say Republicans don't like anyone, I like everyone, even you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can utilize all the rhetoric at your disposal to rationalize the war in Iraq, but the fact remains: the President of the United States of America went before the United States Congress and the American public and made his case for war based on the conjecture that Sudam was manufacturing and storing weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie!

Nobody is ready to give Sudam the Nobel Humanitarian Award, but there are dozens of dictators around the world who are more of a danger to this country than he is. I think Bushy just thought our troops would roll in there and have it done with in short order and he would be remembered as a successful war president. Obviously he was wrong---again.

I hope you saw Colin Powell's recent interview in which he admits being duped by the president and Rumsfeld; and agonizes over the fact that his own legacy will be forever tarnished by this war of lies. One can only hope that Bush's place in history is tainted by the same tarnish.

So your saying that because no WMD's were found Sadam wasn't working on them and storing them? Give me a break.

Dozens of dictators more dangerous to this country then Sadam? Not really. There are dangerous dictators out there, but Sadam tops the list as someone who not only threatens this country but would actually act on it.

Lying about the threat in order to go to war. Welcome to the real world. What war didn't have to be lied about, embellished, or acted on covertly to get the nation fully behind it. FDR said the US would not get involved in WWII. All the while he was sending every piece of war material he could get his hands on to Europe and was just waiting for the right moment to send troops. Korea was to stop the threat of communism and it didn't. Vietnam, again to stop communism, JFK was just going to send a few advisors. We all know how that went.

You don't think the US Military could clean that place up in a few weeks? Think again. If they didn't have to fight it with both hands tied around their backs to apease people like you they'd do it in no time with far fewer casualties.

Let's hear what you would do if you were president. How would you respond to the last several years worth of attacks starting with the first World Trade Center bombing through 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast

>So your saying that because no WMD's were found Sadam wasn't working on them and storing them? Give me a break.<

Sorry, no break for you. If he was working on them or storing them then WTF are they? You guys just keep spouting this stuff with no proof... give it up, he didn't have them.

>Dozens of dictators more dangerous to this country then Sadam? Not really. There are dangerous dictators out there, but Sadam tops the list as someone who not only threatens this country but would actually act on it.<

Again, how was he going to attack us? This is the same BS that has been disproved time and time again yet the right wing continues to repeat it somehow trying to make it true. Like the landing crafts are bursting open on the beach at Seaside Heights and here comes Saddam and Baghdad Bob leading the Iraqis to victory!!!

>Lying about the threat in order to go to war. Welcome to the real world. What war didn't have to be lied about, embellished, or acted on covertly to get the nation fully behind it. FDR said the US would not get involved in WWII. All the while he was sending every piece of war material he could get his hands on to Europe and was just waiting for the right moment to send troops.<

Yeah, and I suppose he covertly put together that whole Pearl Harbor thing then used it as an excuse to fight with two maniacs bent on taking over the world. That FDR was a real shrewd one, boy... pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes!

> Korea was to stop the threat of communism and it didn't. Vietnam, again to stop communism, JFK was just going to send a few advisors. We all know how that went.<

The advisors went to Viet Nam under Eisenhower after the French got beat and 20 years later after a whole bunch of military and diplomatic mistakes... we got beat too.

>You don't think the US Military could clean that place up in a few weeks? Think again. If they didn't have to fight it with both hands tied around their backs to apease people like you they'd do it in no time with far fewer casualties.<

Aw come on! You're pulling my leg! This post is a goof right? The logic of your last paragraph was the same logic I used to hear when we were in Viet Nam. Its like 'if we nuke the whole country then there won't be anyone left to attack our soldiers.' Kinda defeats the purpose, don't cha think? Did you ever stop to think that if we weren't dumb enough to invade Iraq to begin with... they wouldn't be attacking our soldiers? We are getting beat in Iraq the same way we got beat in Viet Nam and for the same reason. We are on their turf with barely a road map. They can attack and fade into the background. They can take food from a soldier during the day and blow up his humvee at night. As in Viet Nam, there is no way to distinguish the 'good gooks' from the 'bad gooks'. The neocons have learned nothing from history. We should never have exposed our troops to a war like this. A war that there is no way to win.

>Let's hear what you would do if you were president. How would you respond to the last several years worth of attacks starting with the first World Trade Center bombing through 9/11.<

Oh and of course! The obligatory reference to 9/11. The wingnut mantra and reason for every dumb move BushCo makes.

As President, one thing I wouldn't have done is attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Hell, Bush even admitted they didn't. Oh! and maybe I wouldn't have let Osama and his band of merry men get away from Tora Bora into the wilds of Pakistan. He’s still out there and still threatening us.

'You're doing a hell of a job Browny' :ph34r:

I could go on and on but the litany of BushCo mistakes speaks for itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So your saying that because no WMD's were found Sadam wasn't working on them and storing them?  Give me a break. 

Dozens of dictators more dangerous to this country then Sadam?  Not really.  There are dangerous dictators out there, but Sadam tops the list as someone who not only threatens this country but would actually act on it.

Lying about the threat in order to go to war.  Welcome to the real world.  What war didn't have to be lied about, embellished, or acted on covertly to get the nation fully behind it.  FDR said the US would not get involved in WWII.  All the while he was sending every piece of war material he could get his hands on to Europe and was just waiting for the right moment to send troops.  Korea was to stop the threat of communism and it didn't.  Vietnam, again to stop communism, JFK was just going to send a few advisors.  We all know how that went.

You don't think the US Military could clean that place up in a few weeks? Think again.  If they didn't have to fight it with both hands tied around their backs to apease people like you they'd do it in no time with far fewer casualties.

Let's hear what you would do if you were president.  How would you respond to the last several years worth of attacks starting with the first World Trade Center bombing through 9/11.

You must have had some really high powered binoculars to see what a team of United Nations on-site weapons inspectors, the whole United States Intelligence Network and the entire United States Military couldn't find. See if you can grasp this: THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. YOUR PRESIDENT LIED TO YOU!

Did you ever question why Bush directed his wrath at Iraq and not North Korea. Kim Jong-il made no secret of the fact that his country was testing nuclear weapons and withdrew from the international disarmament talks. You don't consider that a more eminent threat than Iraq?

I find your theory (regarding the need to lie to the American public to gain support) totally jaded. Even if that were true, are you saying that it's acceptable? And how can anyone possibly compare WWII to Iraq? In WWII, we knew who the enemy was. Those planes dropping bombs over Pearl Harbor left no doubt as to who the enemy was.

Let's get one thing clear. I did not support the President's decision to go to war, but once we were committed and our troops were deployed, I supported them 100%. They are all heroes in my eyes. It's too bad that the administration doesn't have the same respect for our fighting forces. If they did, our troops would not have been sent into battle with inferior equipment, insufficient supplies and no exit plan. (It's ironic that a recent 60 Minutes segment showed our soldiers in Iraq scrounging for pieces of discarded metal or even plywood to reinforce their vehicles, while VP Cheney toured New Orleans in an armored Humvee.)

Truthfully, I not sure what I would do as President. Fortunately I will never find myself in that position because one thing I am sure of is that I am not qualified for the job, but then again, neither is George W. Bush!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad that one day we will realize that we all should have been on the same page regarding this matter. We're wide open and will be hit again. I suppose we will have another commision to understand how it could happen again. Get real guys this aint a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's sad that one day we will realize that we all should have been on the same page regarding this matter. We're wide open and will be hit again. I suppose we will have another commision to understand how it could happen again. Get real guys this aint a game.

God Bless George Bush. I thank God he was President when 9/11 occured. I can only imagine how that bleeding heart John Kerry would have reacted. I think he would have blamed America for causing 9/11 and apologized for offending the Arab world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for this notion that this war was based on a lie, come off it.  Were tens of thousands of Kurds killed in short order in the early 90's?  Yes or no? .

You know, if Bush had made his pitch for the Iraqi invasion based on a humanitarian premise i.e. the killing of the Kurds, I could almost forgive him. But that is not what he did. He used the politics of fear and LIED about the presence of weapons of mass destruction; and then he and his cronies underestimated the resourcefulness of the opposition. So as the administration tells us, "We're workin' hard and makin' progress," the death toll of both Americans and Iraqi nationals rises at a higher rate every day.

Yeah, you're doin' a heck of a job, Bushy!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, no break for you. If he was working on them or storing them then WTF are they? You guys just keep spouting this stuff with no proof... give it up, he didn't have them.

If he didn't have the stuff what were all of the Kurds killed with?  Why did he play games with the weapons inspectors? He had years to store them or move them.

Again, how was he going to attack us? This is the same BS that has been disproved time and time again yet the right wing continues to repeat it somehow trying to make it true. Like the landing crafts are bursting open on the beach at Seaside Heights and here comes Saddam and Baghdad Bob leading the Iraqis to victory!!!

How was he going to attack us?  What do you call all of the terror attacks of the last 10+ years.  This is not a conventional war.  It will be small targets, mostly civilian, funded and supported by countries like Iraq.  Maybe you won't see landing craft at Seaside Heights but did you imagine what was done on 9/11.  Then again, who would have thought that a little island nation like Japan could take over so much territory, destory a US Naval Base, plan for an invasion of the mainland of the US, and put up such a fight when the US finally took them on.

Yeah, and I suppose he covertly put together that whole Pearl Harbor thing then used it as an excuse to fight with two maniacs bent on taking over the world. That FDR was a real shrewd one, boy... pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes!

No, I'm sure he had information expecting an attack from Japan on some US target.

The advisors went to Viet Nam under Eisenhower after the French got beat and 20 years later after a whole bunch of military and diplomatic mistakes... we got beat too.

Military mistakes or political policy?

Aw come on! You're pulling my leg! This post is a goof right? The logic of your last paragraph was the same logic I used to hear when we were in Viet Nam. Its like 'if we nuke the whole country then there won't be anyone left to attack our soldiers.' Kinda defeats the purpose, don't cha think? Did you ever stop to think that if we weren't dumb enough to invade Iraq to begin with... they wouldn't be attacking our soldiers? We are getting beat in Iraq the same way we got beat in Viet Nam and for the same reason. We are on their turf with barely a road map. They can attack and fade into the background. They can take food from a soldier during the day and blow up his humvee at night. As in Viet Nam, there is no way to distinguish the 'good gooks' from the 'bad gooks'. The neocons have learned nothing from history. We should never have exposed our troops to a war like this. A war that there is no way to win.

Not nuke the whole country, but destroy the peoples will to support the fight.  How long do you think that North Vietnam would have carried on if Hanoi and all of it's ability to supply the troops was completely destoyed?  What does "their turf" have to do with it? Plenty of successful battles have been fought on unfamiliar turf.  Any time the enemy in Iraq is engaed it's destroyed.  Anyway, it's not even the Iraqis attacking US troops, it's maniacs from other middle eastern countries.

Oh and of course! The obligatory reference to 9/11. The wingnut mantra and reason for every dumb move BushCo makes.

As President, one thing I wouldn't have done is attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Hell, Bush even admitted they didn't. Oh! and maybe I wouldn't have let Osama and his band of merry men get away from Tora Bora into the wilds of Pakistan. He’s still out there and still threatening us.

The question was what would you do if you were President?  If you think Sadam's money didn't fund terrorism and that he didn't support terrorists in many other ways then you're pretty naive.  The previous administration had more than enough chances to kill Osama.  They even had him in the cross hairs of a Predator a couple of times.  Unfortunately, they didn't have the guts to pull the trigger.  Like I said what would have been your course of action?  And remember, as President you are relying on hundreds or thousands of sources of information that you have to use to make a decision.  But I guess it's just easier for you to criticize.

'You're doing a hell of a job Browny'  :) 

And as long as you bring it up, what did FEMA do differently this time that it hasn't done in the past?  They have always relied on local government to take care of the immediate evacuation and sheltering of people in a crisis like a hurricane.  Then after the storm, they come in to supply relief.

 

I could go on and on but the litany of BushCo mistakes speaks for itself.

like Realist says, "just a bunch of moaners and groaners". JRR is probably spinning in his grave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"You must have had some really high powered binoculars to see what a team of United Nations on-site weapons inspectors, the whole United States Intelligence Network and the entire United States Military couldn't find. See if you can grasp this: THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. YOUR PRESIDENT LIED TO YOU!"

Really, did they get to see everthing? What did Sadam use to kill all of those Kurds with? Can the stuff be moved, destroyed, hidden.  See if you can grasp this: It's a friggin' giant sand box, it could be anywhere.  The fact of the matter is; he developed the weapons and had the facilities to produce it, had large quantities of it stored, he used it on the Kurds, he never allowed any inspectors full access to even his "known manufacturing plants", according to his own scientists he interested in developing nuclear weapons, etc.  But I guess the people of Iraq and the rest of the world were better off with him in power.

"Did you ever question why Bush directed his wrath at Iraq and not North Korea. Kim Jong-il made no secret of the fact that his country was testing nuclear weapons and withdrew from the international disarmament talks. You don't consider that a more eminent threat than Iraq?"

North Korea may be next on the list.  However, North Korea is an isolated country that probably has nuclear capabilities with no way to deliver it long range.  I don't think Kim has the b**** to use it anyway, he knows he'd be obliterated in a matter of seconds if he did.

Iraq is as good a place to start as any.  Let's see; insane dictator, not beyond using chemical weapons, sometimes for fun, on his own citizens, pours money into the support of terrorism, meets with and supplies aid and comfort to known terrorist agents, etc.  Don't you think alot of nations in that region have begun to sit up and take notice? Even Libya is starting to behave.  Nobody said it was going to be easy.  I think Bush himself said that this type of war would probably go beyond the next ten years and it may never truly end.  Still republicans and democrats voted to go ahead.

"I find your theory (regarding the need to lie to the American public to gain support) totally jaded. Even if that were true, are you saying that it's acceptable? And how can anyone possibly compare WWII to Iraq? In WWII, we knew who the enemy was. Those planes dropping bombs over Pearl Harbor left no doubt as to who the enemy was."

I may not consider it acceptable, it is just reality.  It is the nature of the world.  Do you think the government, democrat or republican, can release all of the information it uses to make decisions to the public.  Some things must remain classified in order for the country to operate.  I'm not comparing WWII to Iraq other than to say things are done for reasons not immediately apparent to the public.  I'm sure FDR didn't need Pearl Harbor to know that Japan was a major threat to the US.  Everything Japan did up to Pearl Harbor screamed that the US was the next target.

"Let's get one thing clear. I did not support the President's decision to go to war, but once we were committed and our troops were deployed, I supported them 100%. They are all heroes in my eyes. It's too bad that the administration doesn't have the same respect for our fighting forces. If they did, our troops would not have been sent into battle with inferior equipment, insufficient supplies and no exit plan."

Yeah, yeah, I know.  The same old line "I support the troops but not the war".  I'm sure the troops appreciate that.  It's a funny thing but the vast majority of the troops support the war and feel that it has been worth it.  Inferior equipment, inferior compared to what? Even the best equipment is not going to protect every soldier in every situation.  One thing for sure, whenever the enemy is engaged, our troops ultimately win.  Ask the insurgents or Sadam's "elite troops" if our military has inferior equipment or is not supplied.  Like I said before, Bush warned the country that the war on terror would take a very long term commitment and may never really end.  I prefer that all of the terrorists go to Iraq to be terminated by our well trained troops rather than have them end up here or in Europe.

"Truthfully, I not sure what I would do as President. Fortunately I will never find myself in that position because one thing I am sure of is that I am not qualified for the job, but then again, neither is George W. Bush!"

Why would you say you're not qualified. You simply have to make decisions based on thousands of pieces of information coming from all sorts of sources. How would you have gone about it differently? What exactly qualifies someone to be President? They say President Carter has a degree in Nuclear Physics and he made some major F-ups. Don't join the "moaners and groaners".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you say you're not qualified.  You simply have to make decisions based on thousands of pieces of information coming from all sorts of sources.  How would you have gone about it differently? What exactly qualifies someone to be President? They say President Carter has a degree in Nuclear Physics and he made some major F-ups.  Don't join the "moaners and groaners".

If you had asked me that question 25 years ago, my answer would have been very different than it is today. At this point in my life, I lack the burning desire essential to take any position of awesome responsibility. So that would kind of eliminate, "Leader of the Free World."

I believe that anyone seeking the presidency forms a covenant with the American people, and the world really, to be an honest, informed, decisive, compassionate leader who takes responsibility for his actions (or inactions). As fragile human beings that is a monumental task and recent history shows us that many of our leaders fall short of this paradigm. History will judge each by how far and how often he has fallen short. If there is any justice in this world, George W. Bush's presidency will be judged harshly in the annals of the American story. He has let us down more often than not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, if Bush had made his pitch for the Iraqi invasion based on a humanitarian premise i.e. the killing of the Kurds, I could almost forgive him. But that is not what he did. He used the politics of fear and LIED about the presence of weapons of mass destruction; and then he and his cronies underestimated the resourcefulness of the opposition. So as the administration tells us, "We're workin' hard and makin' progress," the death toll of both Americans and Iraqi nationals rises at a higher rate every day.

Yeah, you're doin' a heck of a job, Bushy!

Sorry, should have spelled it out more clearly, perhaps I overestimated your intelligence. The premise here was that WMD's were indeed used to kill the Kurds, I made no claim of humanitarian causes (although a worthy cause in my view).

As for progress, I find the interviews with the boots on the ground to be more informative than what CNN or LSDNBC would have us believe. They say progress is being made, and their cause a just one, I will just have to continue my support, WITHOUT JUDGEMENT, and assume their version to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...