We learned I HOPE we are very bad at nation buliding. And after we get rid of Bush. Either this time or he runs out of time in 4 more years. We dont try anymore. I cant think of anything else that is good. Were getting nothing.
What has gone right in Iraq
- Thread starter Blitz
- Start date
No Mas
No Mas
This is so old.
I'm done.
I guess things don't matter to many on this board unless the fvcking plane comes through YOUR FRONT WINDOW!
I'll just sit and wait for the results of the election, stand by and support our troops, and watch you Monday morning quarterbacks, the genious's you are (and the previous moron & bitch that were in office) have all the F'n answers long after SCHOOL IS OUT!
I think if someone with any CHARACTER or sense of discipline was in charge a few years back, things might not have had to go this route (THE HARD ONE).
THANK GOD Bush was in office. For all his faults, it would have most likely been a disaster if the other tree-hugging dope won. He probably would have had a nice TOWN HALL MEETING to figure out what to do. LOL
November will be here soon enough. More for you all to CRY WHINE BITCH COMPLAIN WAH WAH WAH. Keep beating off to memories of the Clintons at night. Stupid dopes are one of the main causes Bush probably wins again (I'm not his biggest fan), but I wouldn't expect you to see them for the cancers they are IN THEIR OWN PARTY! LOL
Continue to use your time wisely coming up with more lame conspiracy theory to close the holes in your finely woven discussions. LOL
Fvcking typical!
No Mas
This is so old.
I'm done.
I guess things don't matter to many on this board unless the fvcking plane comes through YOUR FRONT WINDOW!
I'll just sit and wait for the results of the election, stand by and support our troops, and watch you Monday morning quarterbacks, the genious's you are (and the previous moron & bitch that were in office) have all the F'n answers long after SCHOOL IS OUT!
I think if someone with any CHARACTER or sense of discipline was in charge a few years back, things might not have had to go this route (THE HARD ONE).
THANK GOD Bush was in office. For all his faults, it would have most likely been a disaster if the other tree-hugging dope won. He probably would have had a nice TOWN HALL MEETING to figure out what to do. LOL
November will be here soon enough. More for you all to CRY WHINE BITCH COMPLAIN WAH WAH WAH. Keep beating off to memories of the Clintons at night. Stupid dopes are one of the main causes Bush probably wins again (I'm not his biggest fan), but I wouldn't expect you to see them for the cancers they are IN THEIR OWN PARTY! LOL
Continue to use your time wisely coming up with more lame conspiracy theory to close the holes in your finely woven discussions. LOL
Fvcking typical!
More marines die today. Why doesn't Boy George give our guys a chance. I can't believe we have to get down in the mud with these creeps. With all our money and technology the best we can do is to fight them on their terms? Doesn't seem right to me.
It was only 12 Marines dead and 20 wounded today, Stevie. Stop whining. That's a pittance compared to other 'wars', or whatever you call this.
kosar quote:"How about a simple, black and white question.
We know all about the enormous, collective costs of this debacle (lives, dollars, goodwill around the world...etc).
Does anybody have any opinion on the benefits to AMERICA that have come as a result of our occupation?
Are there any?"
to my dear friend kosar,
sorry haven't answered your question sooner, been pretty busy.
there is no clear cut answer to your question if the american people are safer because of the iraq war. to people like you & my other good friend, stevied, you wouldn't agree with anything the the bush administration did.then there are others who agree with everything that the bush administration does. and there are those like me, dennis miller, & former nyc mayor ed koch, who changed their political belief because of 9/11.
people like me think that the iraq war was a necessary event in the war against terrorism. imo, there is a small degree of separation between the terrorists & the terrorists countries, such as iraq. under saddam, iraq gave financial support & had training camps where these thugs were taught terrorist tactics such as how to make bombs, destroy buildings, etc. there is testimony before congress by cia chief, tenent that saddam was a terrorist state which was helping train & support al qaeda. former cia head wosley testified in a 9/11 lawsuit basically agreeing with tenent's assessment. under saddam, iraq sheltered palestinian terrorist organizations including the plo. saddam sheltered the terrorist abu nadal organization, which has carried out terrorist attacks in about 20 countries, killing or injuring about 1000 people, & targeting the u.s. & several western countries.
all of these groups had offices in bagdad & received training assistance & financial assistance from saddam. in 2002(dont remember exact date) saddam increased the payment of suicidal bombers from $10,000 to $20,000.
now, you may say that the plo terrorized israeli's, & had nothing to do with the u.s. that may be, but alqaeda has been spotted a few times huddling (sp?) with hezbollah & hamas. so who is to say that some of saddam's money didn't change hands with hezzbolah & hamas & alqaeda.
by eliminating saddam, imo we killed a terrorist funding & training source that probably helped alqaeda in atacks against america & it's interests.
also by attacking iraq, as intense operator stated, libya came forward to show their wmd's because they were afraid of being attacked like saddam was. you may disagree with this or pooh-pooh this but i think it was a major move on libya's part.
i may have rambled here so just to summerize, saddam was an enabler of terrorist organizations because of training & funding. he is not in power any more, so imo this makes the american people safer.
and i would also support an invasion of iran, no matter who was the president.
We know all about the enormous, collective costs of this debacle (lives, dollars, goodwill around the world...etc).
Does anybody have any opinion on the benefits to AMERICA that have come as a result of our occupation?
Are there any?"
to my dear friend kosar,
sorry haven't answered your question sooner, been pretty busy.
there is no clear cut answer to your question if the american people are safer because of the iraq war. to people like you & my other good friend, stevied, you wouldn't agree with anything the the bush administration did.then there are others who agree with everything that the bush administration does. and there are those like me, dennis miller, & former nyc mayor ed koch, who changed their political belief because of 9/11.
people like me think that the iraq war was a necessary event in the war against terrorism. imo, there is a small degree of separation between the terrorists & the terrorists countries, such as iraq. under saddam, iraq gave financial support & had training camps where these thugs were taught terrorist tactics such as how to make bombs, destroy buildings, etc. there is testimony before congress by cia chief, tenent that saddam was a terrorist state which was helping train & support al qaeda. former cia head wosley testified in a 9/11 lawsuit basically agreeing with tenent's assessment. under saddam, iraq sheltered palestinian terrorist organizations including the plo. saddam sheltered the terrorist abu nadal organization, which has carried out terrorist attacks in about 20 countries, killing or injuring about 1000 people, & targeting the u.s. & several western countries.
all of these groups had offices in bagdad & received training assistance & financial assistance from saddam. in 2002(dont remember exact date) saddam increased the payment of suicidal bombers from $10,000 to $20,000.
now, you may say that the plo terrorized israeli's, & had nothing to do with the u.s. that may be, but alqaeda has been spotted a few times huddling (sp?) with hezbollah & hamas. so who is to say that some of saddam's money didn't change hands with hezzbolah & hamas & alqaeda.
by eliminating saddam, imo we killed a terrorist funding & training source that probably helped alqaeda in atacks against america & it's interests.
also by attacking iraq, as intense operator stated, libya came forward to show their wmd's because they were afraid of being attacked like saddam was. you may disagree with this or pooh-pooh this but i think it was a major move on libya's part.
i may have rambled here so just to summerize, saddam was an enabler of terrorist organizations because of training & funding. he is not in power any more, so imo this makes the american people safer.
and i would also support an invasion of iran, no matter who was the president.
AR I hope your right were safer time will tell. Remember time is not on our side. But I do pray your right. With our open borders im not convince. And the new Terroist training camp we have created in Iraq makes me wonder.
Thank you for a very eloquent and truthful answer AR. I take offence with you brushing me off as someone who wouldn't agree with anything Bush does. I don't agree with his tax cuts or the invasion of Iraq. I do feel that Bush showed great leadership in the days following 911.
I also think that he came into office Hell bent on getting Saddam. That 911 was just a diversion. That he, Cheney and Halliburton were going to Iraq no matter what. I do not feel that Iraq is a part of the greater and more important War on Terror. The invasion created a breeding ground for terrorist rather than destroy one. It diverted billions of dollars that could have been better served defending our homeland and finding terrorists. Bush has politicalized this war. He has driven a stake right thru the middle of America with this war. While Rummy and Cheney were propping Saddam up in the 80's many of us were then calling for his removal. If you are against the war you are not against the troops.
Don't fall into the trap that everything is politics. Many of us were against this war on its own merits.
I also think that he came into office Hell bent on getting Saddam. That 911 was just a diversion. That he, Cheney and Halliburton were going to Iraq no matter what. I do not feel that Iraq is a part of the greater and more important War on Terror. The invasion created a breeding ground for terrorist rather than destroy one. It diverted billions of dollars that could have been better served defending our homeland and finding terrorists. Bush has politicalized this war. He has driven a stake right thru the middle of America with this war. While Rummy and Cheney were propping Saddam up in the 80's many of us were then calling for his removal. If you are against the war you are not against the troops.
Don't fall into the trap that everything is politics. Many of us were against this war on its own merits.
I'll second what the good man from AZ says...
by eliminating saddam, imo we killed a terrorist funding & training source that probably helped alqaeda in atacks against america & it's interests.
also by attacking iraq, as intense operator stated, libya came forward to show their wmd's because they were afraid of being attacked like saddam was. you may disagree with this or pooh-pooh this but i think it was a major move on libya's part.
i may have rambled here so just to summerize, saddam was an enabler of terrorist organizations because of training & funding. he is not in power any more, so imo this makes the american people safer.
And I beieve we have made a decision so we should follow it through. I don't mind the 2nd guessing, but calling the present administration liars and deliberately misleading the public goes a bit too far. I think the blame goes to our own snafu's due to lack of communication between Dept.s and our own politics. I know we have our faults and someone will always be at odds w/what the U.S. does, but there are still ppl risking their lives everyday just to get to America. Would you rather we acted/reacted like Spain?
by eliminating saddam, imo we killed a terrorist funding & training source that probably helped alqaeda in atacks against america & it's interests.
also by attacking iraq, as intense operator stated, libya came forward to show their wmd's because they were afraid of being attacked like saddam was. you may disagree with this or pooh-pooh this but i think it was a major move on libya's part.
i may have rambled here so just to summerize, saddam was an enabler of terrorist organizations because of training & funding. he is not in power any more, so imo this makes the american people safer.
And I beieve we have made a decision so we should follow it through. I don't mind the 2nd guessing, but calling the present administration liars and deliberately misleading the public goes a bit too far. I think the blame goes to our own snafu's due to lack of communication between Dept.s and our own politics. I know we have our faults and someone will always be at odds w/what the U.S. does, but there are still ppl risking their lives everyday just to get to America. Would you rather we acted/reacted like Spain?
Is everyone trying to say we cant be wrong. We were wrong in nam. took many years to admitt it. But we proved zero in nam. Iraq is young yet and some of the wrongs are showing up now. Soon history will pass and then we will say? And for god sake dont say we got ride of traing camps in Iraq. Maybe they were there maybe not. But there sure as hell are there now. Someone killed about 24 of our men in last 3 days.
StevieD- Didn't see your post.
The invasion created a breeding ground for terrorist rather than destroy one. It diverted billions of dollars that could have been better served defending our homeland and finding terrorists. Bush has politicalized this war. He has driven a stake right thru the middle of America with this war.
In Cali I keep hearing that the Driver's License for Illegal Aliens, not Undocumented Workers, is still being pushed. How can we be serious about security when ppl want their own agenda to come before anything else. Remember the Rent-A-Cops for airport security? LAX and John Wayne airport had Illegals working security and on the tarmac! Remember the start of the VA area sniper shooting? The white van they stopped were illegals from Guatamala. I don't know the best answer, but again we can take a lesson from Spain- IMHO.
P.S.: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040406/ap_on_re_us/no_fly_lawsuit
If you want security, (results), you have to take the appropriate actions. Keep it civil Eddie Haskell or you can carry your own golf bag
The invasion created a breeding ground for terrorist rather than destroy one. It diverted billions of dollars that could have been better served defending our homeland and finding terrorists. Bush has politicalized this war. He has driven a stake right thru the middle of America with this war.
In Cali I keep hearing that the Driver's License for Illegal Aliens, not Undocumented Workers, is still being pushed. How can we be serious about security when ppl want their own agenda to come before anything else. Remember the Rent-A-Cops for airport security? LAX and John Wayne airport had Illegals working security and on the tarmac! Remember the start of the VA area sniper shooting? The white van they stopped were illegals from Guatamala. I don't know the best answer, but again we can take a lesson from Spain- IMHO.
P.S.: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040406/ap_on_re_us/no_fly_lawsuit
If you want security, (results), you have to take the appropriate actions. Keep it civil Eddie Haskell or you can carry your own golf bag
Last edited:
stevied,
i would never brush your opinion off. i respect you too much.
but i have never read anything by you, on this board, showing that you agree with anything bush has done. that is not a criticism of you, it was just an observation. but since you say that there are things that you agree with bush on, i will definitely take your word.
chanman,
good points. i agree that people shouldn't call the president a liar or deliberately misleading the american public. it's demeaning to the office. and btw, i didn't like the charge against clinton of wagging the dog when he took any action. that may have hurt us because clinton did not want to hear that charge.
i would never brush your opinion off. i respect you too much.
but i have never read anything by you, on this board, showing that you agree with anything bush has done. that is not a criticism of you, it was just an observation. but since you say that there are things that you agree with bush on, i will definitely take your word.
chanman,
good points. i agree that people shouldn't call the president a liar or deliberately misleading the american public. it's demeaning to the office. and btw, i didn't like the charge against clinton of wagging the dog when he took any action. that may have hurt us because clinton did not want to hear that charge.
Thanks AR and Chan. Good posts. Also, a great post by Stevie that followed your first one, AR.
AR,
I can at least fathom somebody feeling safer after the Iraq occupation. I don't agree with it in the least, but your thoughts are very well presented, sincere and not intellectually dishonest.
I agree with the posters (Stevie and DJV?) that mentioned that if anything, we have opened up a huge playground for terrorists. That's definitely the case currently, but more importantly it's almost inevitable that this will be the case indefinitely. There are bits and pieces here and there that suggest that there might have been *some* sort of interaction between Saddam and Al-Queda, but the evidence is very vague and it really feels like people are making a huge leap, based on that evidence.
Even if every single snippet, sighting, meeting were true, I think we'll find that that activity pales in comparison to what we have to look forward to.
Thanks again, guys.
AR,
I can at least fathom somebody feeling safer after the Iraq occupation. I don't agree with it in the least, but your thoughts are very well presented, sincere and not intellectually dishonest.
I agree with the posters (Stevie and DJV?) that mentioned that if anything, we have opened up a huge playground for terrorists. That's definitely the case currently, but more importantly it's almost inevitable that this will be the case indefinitely. There are bits and pieces here and there that suggest that there might have been *some* sort of interaction between Saddam and Al-Queda, but the evidence is very vague and it really feels like people are making a huge leap, based on that evidence.
Even if every single snippet, sighting, meeting were true, I think we'll find that that activity pales in comparison to what we have to look forward to.
Thanks again, guys.
Got only one question that pretty well sums up my feelings.
Do you feel the terrorist feel safer?????
--- I must have somehow mistakenly taken Bush's address after 911 that this would be all out wager on terrorism.
I find it interesting that the terrorist and "other elements" promotions and propaganda are so similiar.
Do you feel the terrorist feel safer?????
--- I must have somehow mistakenly taken Bush's address after 911 that this would be all out wager on terrorism.
I find it interesting that the terrorist and "other elements" promotions and propaganda are so similiar.
Kosar:
Your Nurse Ratchett comment was the funniest post I've ever read on this board. Still rolling. Kuddos.
You all know where I stand on this issue so no use repeating it. My only point is that I thought Bush was a murderer, corporate puppet and a completely and total imbecile from day one. Anyone who can vote for this felon in November needs a couple of doses of thorazine (keeping with the Nurse Ratchet theme).
Now, waiting for my very own stalker to launch one of his well thought through attacks from southern california (unless he's listening to elevator music with Jack Nicholson).
Ed
Your Nurse Ratchett comment was the funniest post I've ever read on this board. Still rolling. Kuddos.
You all know where I stand on this issue so no use repeating it. My only point is that I thought Bush was a murderer, corporate puppet and a completely and total imbecile from day one. Anyone who can vote for this felon in November needs a couple of doses of thorazine (keeping with the Nurse Ratchet theme).
Now, waiting for my very own stalker to launch one of his well thought through attacks from southern california (unless he's listening to elevator music with Jack Nicholson).
Ed
Dogs,
Of course the terrorists don't feel safer. I mean, come on. It certainly has nothing to do with our occupation of Iraq, though. I would be really interested in whether you think us invading Iraq scared them or whether it gave them not only a big playground, but it also took the heat off of them by us shifting our focus to Iraq and away from them. How in the world could you associate us invading Iraq with 'scaring terrorists?'
The reason the terrorists don't or shouldn't feel safer in general is because of an automatic and obvious response to 9/11. If you think that anybody in office wouldn't have retaliated against Afghanistan after 9/11, then I think you're way out there, brother. The only thing that a different president, regardless of party, might have done differently is followed through with Al-Queda instead of diverting attention to some 3rd world banana republic.
I just can't follow this. Maybe it's me. We have the greatest terrorist attack in our history launched. We retaliate stongly for a while and then not so strongly. And *this* is what enamors people about Bush and his terror fighting abilities?
Also, while terrorists may not feel safer, they have been a hell of a lot more active since 9/11, so I don't think they're exactly cowering in their closets.
Of course the terrorists don't feel safer. I mean, come on. It certainly has nothing to do with our occupation of Iraq, though. I would be really interested in whether you think us invading Iraq scared them or whether it gave them not only a big playground, but it also took the heat off of them by us shifting our focus to Iraq and away from them. How in the world could you associate us invading Iraq with 'scaring terrorists?'
The reason the terrorists don't or shouldn't feel safer in general is because of an automatic and obvious response to 9/11. If you think that anybody in office wouldn't have retaliated against Afghanistan after 9/11, then I think you're way out there, brother. The only thing that a different president, regardless of party, might have done differently is followed through with Al-Queda instead of diverting attention to some 3rd world banana republic.
I just can't follow this. Maybe it's me. We have the greatest terrorist attack in our history launched. We retaliate stongly for a while and then not so strongly. And *this* is what enamors people about Bush and his terror fighting abilities?
Also, while terrorists may not feel safer, they have been a hell of a lot more active since 9/11, so I don't think they're exactly cowering in their closets.
ferdville thats a fair point. In fact they were saying in the wall street journal there only up to about 60% production. And we talk about how those dam French are not helping us. But then behind the BS, 1/2 of that 60% is going where. Yup. F.
Yes I think Iraq and Afgan made terrorists every where think twice and took giant step on countries everywhere realizing this is basically a religious war of islamic fundalist against weatern civilization --and no country is spared. If I was a terrorist I'd have to consider the merits of swapping 2 buildings for 2 countries.
The is basically a war of the world vs islamic fundalist. I like the idea of the major battlefield being on their turf.
Their only weapons are fear and propaganda. We will take casualties but need to make a stand somewhere, sometime and the sooner the better. While casuaties are always a concern, my thoughts are they are unpreventable but need to be contained--however my passion is the elements from within our country and other countries that fuel the terrorist and that contributes to deaths and promotes the assumption to terrorist that their fear tactics are in deed working on some. If you don't think Kerry is their poster boy take a look at Algezeera's propaganda tatics.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4757321E-F638-4926-B3CC-2EADA3FA8C76.htm
Now for those of you inclined to continue to agree with Kerry you will note to the left of article there is area for feedback.
I am sure they (and the terrorist)would also appreciate any support you could offer.
The is basically a war of the world vs islamic fundalist. I like the idea of the major battlefield being on their turf.
Their only weapons are fear and propaganda. We will take casualties but need to make a stand somewhere, sometime and the sooner the better. While casuaties are always a concern, my thoughts are they are unpreventable but need to be contained--however my passion is the elements from within our country and other countries that fuel the terrorist and that contributes to deaths and promotes the assumption to terrorist that their fear tactics are in deed working on some. If you don't think Kerry is their poster boy take a look at Algezeera's propaganda tatics.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4757321E-F638-4926-B3CC-2EADA3FA8C76.htm
Now for those of you inclined to continue to agree with Kerry you will note to the left of article there is area for feedback.
I am sure they (and the terrorist)would also appreciate any support you could offer.
