George Bush's Wildly Successful War On Terrorism

[budanski]

George Bush's Wildly Successful War On Terrorism
mensnewsdaily.com (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/h/hawkins/2004/hawkins052804.htm)
John Hawkins

Lately, it seems that not a day can pass without Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry and their ideological soul mates in the mainstream media making acerbic comments about how the Bush administration has handled the war on terrorism. For those of us who disagree with them, it is easy enough to "attack the attackers" and many people, myself included, have done exactly that. However, in and of itself, that is not an adequate response. Instead of debating whether or not the war on terror has been a failure, the truth, that war on terror has been an overwhelming success so far, must be told. Despite what we hear daily from the "nattering nabobs of negativity" in our country, we should be proud of the magnificent job that George W. Bush, his administration, our troops, and our intelligence services have done fighting the war on terrorism. In perhaps the two most perfectly executed military campaigns ever waged on this earth, our troops smashed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime, freeing 50 million people from tyrants who had made the lives of their people into a living hell.

In Afghanistan, we were told going in that the war would be long, difficult, and perhaps even unwinnable. A lesser man than George Bush might have gotten weak kneed at the prospect of sending our troops into a "mountainous Vietnam" and found some sort of excuse not to go. But, not only did we take the fight to our enemies in Afghanistan, we bombed Al-Qaeda's camps, decimated the Taliban, drove them out of power in less than two months, and sent our enemies running to Pakistan and remote caves on the Afghan border, where they live even today as hunted men. This is even more impressive than it sounds since our defeatist press was crying "quagmire" & "Vietnam" as we bombed our enemies into oblivion.

Then in Iraq, we removed Saddam Hussein, an anti-American tyrant & sponsor of terrorism who started two wars of aggression in the region while he simultaneously raped, tortured, and butchered his own people with a zeal matched by few figures in modern history. Once the war began, the performance of our military was again incomparable. Saddam's forces were defeated, scattered to the four winds in less than a month, even as the press, a week into the war, was again baying the dreaded "V word" loud and often.

Since then, the occupation of Iraq has been tougher than anticipated, but our troops have performed superbly under the most difficult of circumstances and Iraq is on track towards Democracy. As expected, the press has obsessively focused on the negatives: looting, violence, & Abu Ghraib. But on June 30th, sovereignty will be handed over to the Iraqis and in January of next year, the Iraqis are scheduled to have national elections to go along with the local elections that have happened across most of Iraq already. A cesspool of terrorism & anti-American hatred is being turned into a democracy, one that may help push the whole region towards freedom, because of the rock ribbed leadership of the Bush administration and the brilliant and determined performance of our soldiers on the ground.

But wait, there's more! Even if there were a terrorist attack inside the continental United States tomorrow, our intelligence agencies and the oft demonized John Ashcroft should be praised for successfully defending the homeland from Al-Qaeda for more than 2 1/2 years of war. How many people would have believed that was possible on September 12, 2001?

Of course, it may have been easier than some had expected to protect our country from Al-Qaeda since roughly 2/3rd's of Al-Qaeda's leadership has been captured and around 3000 rank and file members of Al-Qaeda have been "incapacitated" since 9/11. Perhaps that's also one of the reasons why, in 2003, annual international terrorist attacks dropped to their lowest level since 1969.

Furthermore, formerly "terrorist friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Libya are now fervently pursuing terrorists inside of their own borders. And speaking of Pakistan and Libya, a nuclear arms ring based out of Pakistan is now out of business and one of its best customers, Libya, has now given up its WMD programs and is attempting to rejoin the family of nations. All of this is thanks to George Bush's diplomacy.

However, all of these triumphs for America are ignored by grandstanding politicians and a hostile press which incessantly snipes at the Bush administration, usually over comparatively minor issues. What must be understood is that they're missing the forest for the trees. Despite the setbacks and difficulties we've experienced, President Bush has accomplished more on the foreign policy front in less than one full term than the last 4 Democratic Presidents, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, did combined!

All this brings to mind a Theodore Roosevelt quote that's a favorite of mine, "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat."

"The man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood" is one George W. Bush and waging a war on terrorism in an age when defending America has become a partisan issue must certainly be considered "daring greatly". We are lucky to have such a man in the White House, because like other great American Presidents of times gone by, he is leading America towards victory in a worthy cause.

You have to wonder, if only the Democrats would put as much effort in attacking our enemies as they do attacking Bush, whos knows how much more would've been accomplished...

[agcsy]

The Democrats are to busy bashing their own country to worry about much else.

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

Agreed. Democraps are so worried about bashing Bush they seem to have forgotten about the fact that there are still enemies that want all of us DEAD where we stand and we are a country at war against terrorist. I haven't forgotten 9/11 and it pisses me off more so every day.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

George Bush's Wildly Successful War On Terrorism
mensnewsdaily.com (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/h/hawkins/2004/hawkins052804.htm)
John Hawkins

Libya, has now given up its WMD programs and is attempting to rejoin the family of nations. All of this is thanks to George Bush's diplomacy.
The US had little input in the negotiations with Libya, it was kicked off by MI6 and the UK foreign office. As for terrorism we have not even scratched the surface and have a long way to go possibly decades before we see any positive results. Personally I feel any president would have taken the same actions as President Bush if faced with an attack of the magnitude of 9/11.

[OB Kenobi]

You Bush apologists just never give up, do you? Do you think the Demonrats wouldn't have done something about the terrorists if 9/11 happened with Gore in office?

One thing they wouldn't do is attack Iraq instead of catching Bin Laden. Bush is incompetent, he's screwed up the "terror war" completely, and plundered the country of $500,000,000,000! For what? What are we getting out of conquering Iraq?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0528/dailyUpdate.html

Early in the week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based think tank, released its annual survey of world affairs. The Associated Press reports that the IISS claims that, far from being undermined by the war on terror, Al Qaeda "has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks."

Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the report said. The US occupation of Iraq brought Al Qaeda recruits from across Islamic nations, the study said. Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi insurgents.

IISS researcher Christopher Langton told reporters that it could take up to 500,000 US and allied troops to effectively police Iraq and restore political stability. And Knight-Ridder News Service carries the IISS claim that Al Qaeda continues its efforts to find material to make a nuclear or 'dirty' bomb.

[budanski]

Personally I feel any president would have taken the same actions as President Bush if faced with an attack of the magnitude of 9/11.

Gore was part of an administration, which refused to accept Bin Laden's head on a silver platter (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/terror/response/1056573), when Sudan offered it about three times.

The first attack on the Twin Towers, Clinton/Gore did nothing. The bombing of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Clinton/Gore did nothing. The Kenya bombing, Clinto/Gore did nothing. The bombing of the Cole, Clinton/Gore did nothing. What else would one expect from Gore? Given their record on fighting terrorism, they've would've persued it as a law enforcement problem.

Honestly, if Al Gore had been elected president, after September 11th we would have surrendered our sovereignty to the United Nations and he'd still would have been appointing committees to discuss how 9-11 was all our fault.

[budanski]

Early in the week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based think tank, released its annual survey of world affairs. The Associated Press reports that the IISS claims that, far from being undermined by the war on terror, Al Qaeda "has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks."

Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the report said. The US occupation of Iraq brought Al Qaeda recruits from across Islamic nations, the study said. Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi insurgents.

IISS researcher Christopher Langton told reporters that it could take up to 500,000 US and allied troops to effectively police Iraq and restore political stability. And Knight-Ridder News Service carries the IISS claim that Al Qaeda continues its efforts to find material to make a nuclear or 'dirty' bomb.

Swelling its ranks, eh? Only an embecile as yourself would believe this liberal-trash logic. :roll:

Lets read how this 18,000 number came about...

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/alqaeda.ap/index.html)
The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence estimates that al Qaeda trained at least 20,000 fighters in its training camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said.

The 18,000 number is in no way associated with Iraqi, but yet it is totally spun that way.

[Secret Squirrel]

Iraq just happens to be the breeding grounds now for terrorists. I bet the local populas are just thrilled about that. The fact remains that Bush and friends were fooled by, amongst other "intelligence" sources, an exhiled iraq who was on the U.S's payroll into commiting a political assassination. Iraq seemed happy to have Saddam gone, well some of them anyway, but how happy are they with the occupation? I dont include Blair as being taken by the exhile, as his role in this war was to see how far he could crawl up Bush's ass politically. Honestly, why do you think it was mostly one country fielding the troops that went into this war?

[n4292936]

Just a point of interest: what the IISS study was trying to convey was that the ranks of militant Islamic organisation as a whole have swollen. Those groups may have loose or casual aquantances with AlQaeda at best but subscribe to the same militantly anit-American sentiments that they do. Iraq is directly related to this swelling, as was afghanistan. While I think the former was certainly justified, and latter only possibly so, lets not kid ourselves and suggest that the war in Iraq has had no impact on the numbers of militant islamists except to reduce their numbers as they are killed by the military. Don't suggest that one is a liberal idiot because they reach this conclusion or simply disagree with yours. Terrorists do not exist in finite numbers only declining as they are killed, recuirts regulalry come in, especially in times like this when they see islam as under threat and an arab nation under occupation (regardless of whether or not it is just), and acts of terrorism correspond very closely to the level of American activitives overseas. The CATO Institutute, RAND and the IISS - all highly respected think tanks have in essence drawn the same conclusions. Stop living in your glass bubble

[786mine]

Agreed. Democraps are so worried about bashing Bush they seem to have forgotten about the fact that there are still enemies that want all of us DEAD where we stand and we are a country at war against terrorist. I haven't forgotten 9/11 and it pisses me off more so every day.

I think you need to get a reality check and get over it. Time to move on and get a life...same goes for all these hardcore americans that emerged after 9/11.

[seruriermarshal]

Iraq just happens to be the breeding grounds now for terrorists. I bet the local populas are just thrilled about that. The fact remains that Bush and friends were fooled by, amongst other "intelligence" sources, an exhiled iraq who was on the U.S's payroll into commiting a political assassination. Iraq seemed happy to have Saddam gone, well some of them anyway, but how happy are they with the occupation? I dont include Blair as being taken by the exhile, as his role in this war was to see how far he could crawl up Bush's ass politically. Honestly, why do you think it was mostly one country fielding the troops that went into this war?

Your more lie like Your great lie :"Saddam no WMD?"

[Sir Zach of R.]

Agreed. Democraps are so worried about bashing Bush they seem to have forgotten about the fact that there are still enemies that want all of us DEAD where we stand and we are a country at war against terrorist. I haven't forgotten 9/11 and it pisses me off more so every day.

I think you need to get a reality check and get over it. Time to move on and get a life...same goes for all these hardcore americans that emerged after 9/11.

Oh I'm sorry, but I think anyone with half a brain would remember the 3,185 civilians that died in Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington DC.

9/11: NEVER FORGET, NOR FORGIVE.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

we should be proud of the magnificent job that George W. Bush, his administration, our troops, and our intelligence services have done fighting the war on terrorism. In perhaps the two most perfectly executed military campaigns ever waged on this earth, our troops smashed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime, freeing 50 million people from tyrants who had made the lives of their people into a living hell

Hmmm I wasnt aware that the US did this all by themselves with no help....

[scm77]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

[Ratamacue]

(Sniff)

Is something burning?

[Secret Squirrel]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

[seruriermarshal]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

And Saddam have WMD .

[scm77]

And he raped/tortured/killed 250,000-1,000,000 people. But I guess for the democrats that isn't enough.

[Secret Squirrel]

And he raped/tortured/killed 250,000-1,000,000 people. But I guess for the democrats that isn't enough.

But that wasnt the reason for this war, now was it? This wasnt "sold" as a war of liberation, it turned into a war of liberation when Bush realized he got suckered into doing the dirty work of Iraqi exhiles and he needed a new reason for his power trip.

[seruriermarshal]

And he raped/tortured/killed 250,000-1,000,000 people. But I guess for the democrats that isn't enough.

You are right .

[cut]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

And Saddam have WMD .

rofl rofl

people say the press is liberal propaganda and then openly accept the article and the start of this thread. You shoud take everything with a pinch of salt.

[scm77]

Don't forget the numerous UN sanctions and resolutions he broke/didn't follow.

[seruriermarshal]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

And Saddam have WMD .

rofl rofl

people say the press is liberal propaganda and then openly accept the article and the start of this thread. You shoud take everything with a pinch of salt.

Where are your friend HELEX ?

[Secret Squirrel]

Don't forget the numerous UN sanctions and resolutions he broke/didn't follow.

But thats not entirely true. Fact remains Bush got an itchy trigger finger. Why do you think nothing has been found in Iraq as per the reasons Bush sited for this war? No fleets of manned or unmanned aerial fights, no biological labs, no weapons that were against U.N regulations...etc. What was this emergency threat to world peace represented by Iraq? Where were the terrorists that were suppose to have infested Iraq? They were there before, but thanks to the U.S theres tons of them there now (I bet AQ would like to thank Bush for taking some of the pressure off them with this war). The only thing Bush accomplished is to make the world a lot less safe by kicking the ant hill. I hope he looks back in Nov. and asks himself if it was worth it.

[seruriermarshal]

Don't forget the numerous UN sanctions and resolutions he broke/didn't follow.

But thats not entirely true. Fact remains Bush got an itchy trigger finger. Why do you think nothing has been found in Iraq as per the reasons Bush sited for this war? No fleets of manned or unmanned aerial fights, no biological labs, no weapons that were against U.N regulations...etc. What was this emergency threat to world peace represented by Iraq? Where were the terrorists that were suppose to have infested Iraq? They were there before, but thanks to the U.S theres tons of them there now (I bet AQ would like to thank Bush for taking some of the pressure off them with this war). The only thing Bush accomplished is to make the world a lot less safe by kicking the ant hill. I hope he looks back in Nov. and asks himself if it was worth it.

In fact WMD found in Iraq .

[[AFSOC]]

The Democrats are to busy bashing their own country to worry about much else.

Um...

When your in Politics and your the opposition all you pretty much do is bash the other party and what they do in the country...

So shut your yap about how Democrats are to busy bashing their own country, cuz if the Democrats were in power on 9/11 and then the war on terror begun.....Republicans would be bashing what the Democrats do to the country too.

jeez

[Secret Squirrel]

]
The Democrats are to busy bashing their own country to worry about much else.

Um...

When your in Politics and your the opposition all you pretty much do is bash the other party and what they do in the country...

So shut your yap about how Democrats are to busy bashing their own country, cuz if the Democrats were in power on 9/11 and then the war on terror begun.....Republicans would be bashing what the Democrats do to the country too.

jeez

well said. The only different if the democrats were in power is more focus would have been placed on Ghanny instead of putting the U.S's security further at risk by invading Iraq.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Hmmm so the 6,500 Canadians there didnt help at all? What about the British and the Germans? Have they done nothing too?

What about the countries helping in Iraq? Have they done nothing either? Think before you type man, the writer didnt give any credit any-were else were its due and unfortuneatly your not either.

[Secret Squirrel]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Hmmm so the 6,500 Canadians there didnt help at all? What about the British and the Germans? Have they done nothing too?

What about the countries helping in Iraq? Have they done nothing either? Think before you type man, the writer didnt give any credit any-were else were its due and unfortuneatly your not either.

Dont worry, when things get much worse then the U.S will name its allies.

[caspermeister]

Don't forget the numerous UN sanctions and resolutions he broke/didn't follow.

But thats not entirely true. Fact remains Bush got an itchy trigger finger. Why do you think nothing has been found in Iraq as per the reasons Bush sited for this war? No fleets of manned or unmanned aerial fights, no biological labs, no weapons that were against U.N regulations...etc. What was this emergency threat to world peace represented by Iraq? Where were the terrorists that were suppose to have infested Iraq? They were there before, but thanks to the U.S theres tons of them there now (I bet AQ would like to thank Bush for taking some of the pressure off them with this war). The only thing Bush accomplished is to make the world a lot less safe by kicking the ant hill. I hope he looks back in Nov. and asks himself if it was worth it.
Guess who's back?
Pardon me, but I smell Mastapotato here :lol:

[scm77]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Hmmm so the 6,500 Canadians there didnt help at all? What about the British and the Germans? Have they done nothing too?

What about the countries helping in Iraq? Have they done nothing either? Think before you type man, the writer didnt give any credit any-were else were its due and unfortuneatly your not either.

Yes those other countries did help, but the US still did most of the work. Especially in Iraq.

[Secret Squirrel]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Hmmm so the 6,500 Canadians there didnt help at all? What about the British and the Germans? Have they done nothing too?

What about the countries helping in Iraq? Have they done nothing either? Think before you type man, the writer didnt give any credit any-were else were its due and unfortuneatly your not either.

Yes those other countries did help, but the US still did most of the work. Especially in Iraq.

The U.S had to do most of it in Iraq by itself because Bush burned a lot of Alliances/Bridges by making the world less safe.

[Felix]

Wait, when where WMD found, I think I missed that................................those shells turned out to be bust.

[budanski]

]
The Democrats are to busy bashing their own country to worry about much else.

Um...

When your in Politics and your the opposition all you pretty much do is bash the other party and what they do in the country...

So shut your yap about how Democrats are to busy bashing their own country, cuz if the Democrats were in power on 9/11 and then the war on terror begun.....Republicans would be bashing what the Democrats do to the country too.

jeez

Oh really? That wasnt the case when Clinton decided to go into Bosnia. You didnt see the Republicans ganging up on Clinton and claiming it was a quagmire even though we are all still there today.

[Secret Squirrel]

]
The Democrats are to busy bashing their own country to worry about much else.

Um...

When your in Politics and your the opposition all you pretty much do is bash the other party and what they do in the country...

So shut your yap about how Democrats are to busy bashing their own country, cuz if the Democrats were in power on 9/11 and then the war on terror begun.....Republicans would be bashing what the Democrats do to the country too.

jeez

Oh really? That wasnt the case when Clinton decided to go into Bosnia. You didnt see the Republicans ganging up on Clinton and claiming it was a quagmire even though we are all still there today.

Do you remember why they went into Bosnia?

[budanski]

mass graves was one of a few reasons. guess what? saddam had them too.

[Secret Squirrel]

mass graves was one of a few reasons. guess what? saddam had them too.

do you remember their title when they went into Bosina?

[budanski]

yeah, during that time I remembered my title as a sr. designer. :roll:

throw me a bone here...

[Secret Squirrel]

yeah, during that time I remembered my title as a sr. designer. :roll:

throw me a bone here...

It was a true coalition peacekeeping mission. The United States armed forces has been stationed in Bosnia-Herzegovina (the official name of the country) since December, 1995 when the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed by the former warring factions (Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia). This agreement ended the 4-year-long war between Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia (Yugoslavia), and Croatia. The United States, along with about 35 other countries, agreed to send troops to Bosnia to enforce the Peace Agreement, to ensure the war did not start again.

[budanski]

Lets just call it the Balkans because if you want to get "technical", I don't recall it ever being called Bosina...


do you remember their title when they went into Bosina?

You got the gist of what I was sayin.

The fact is, the republicans have never undermined public confidence in President Clinton during a time of war by questioning his credibility and raising doubts about the direction of the country while U.S. troops were fighting on foreign soil.

[Secret Squirrel]

Lets just call it the Balkans because if you want to get "technical", I don't recall it ever being called Bosina...


do you remember their title when they went into Bosina?

You got the gist of what I was sayin.

The fact is, the republicans have never undermined public confidence in President Clinton during a time of war by questioning his credibility and raising doubts about the direction of the country while U.S. troops were fighting on foreign soil.

Because there was no basis to question or condemn Clinton's decision. Iraq is a completely different situation. Iraq was a pre-emptive/chosen war, Bosina was a peacekeeping mission with 30+ countries represented.

[budanski]

Right, so the Balkans was a direct threat to the U.S., moreso than Iraq because if you're gonna use the excuse of massacres and ethnic cleansing theres a few African countries that needed us more than the balkans.

[usa320]

Look, i dont give a **** if your a republican or a democrat, or if the president is a republican or a democrat, or ralph nader for that matter...in a time of war, wether you support the war or not, It is each and every citizens duty and obligation to support the troops and to support the commander in chief. War and politics are too seperate things that should be kept seperated.

The bottom line is we are at war, and wether you like it or not, you need to support the troops because they are sacrificing their lives and time and conviniences to protect the things we hold dear to us. The things too many people seem to take for granted these days. Unfortunately too many people are using their hate for the President they elected as a vehicle to show their lack of respect and lack of support for our armed forces, which is shameful. If we want to win this war, which the American people do- Americans are winners. We will not tolerate losing, then we need to stand behind our soldiers 100%. We need to stop with democrat or republican and stand united. Because this is a war we must win. To establish a democrat and free foothold in the middle-east means establishing a breeding ground for tolerance and reform. As people around that part of the world see the freedom and security and proseperity that Iraqis and Afghans enjoy, this freedom and change, tolerance and hope will spread. The only way to end islamic terrorism, and make our world a safer place to live is to show the Arab world how great freedom is. To show them how much better a joyful, prosperous and safe life is, compared to poverty, dictators and streets ruled by merciless bands of thugs. I will not feel that my children and their children will be safe for decades more until we can bring this freedom to these people...Only then will a breeding ground of hatred and terror become a breeding ground of hope and change.

[Sir Zach of R.]

You say that the US burned alliances burned alliances by making the world less safe. On what grounds? Saddam killed up to a million and a quarter civilians in Iraq and Iran, WITH WMD. Even if Saddam had no weapons in his posession during the weeks leading up to OP Iraqi Freedom, the point is that he killed thousands of innocents in the previous years. Think of it like this: You know a serial killer has killed over 50 people, and he has an huge lot of different weapons. But over the last few weeks, he gets rid of them. Now, do you say: Hmm, he doesn't have them anymore so I guess we're all safe. OR, do you take out this sucker for what he did and will likely do again? I think we all know the answer to that one. :cantbeli:

[Secret Squirrel]

Right, so the Balkans was a direct threat to the U.S., moreso than Iraq because if you're gonna use the excuse of massacres and ethnic cleansing theres a few African countries that needed us more than the balkans.

no, i'm going to use the reasoning of a PEACEKEEPING mission instead of the pre-emptive war against Iraq.

[usa320]

Bosina was a peacekeeping mission with 30+ countries represented.

I reckon there are some 28 nations supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[Secret Squirrel]

Bosina was a peacekeeping mission with 30+ countries represented.

I reckon there are some 28 nations supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

do ya reckon? who are they and who had troops on the ground during the invasion? More importantly, who are the major players in Iraq on the U.S's side? By major players i mean countries either part of the U.N security council or major contributors to NATO.

[Secret Squirrel]

You say that the US burned alliances burned alliances by making the world less safe. On what grounds? Saddam killed up to a million and a quarter civilians in Iraq and Iran, WITH WMD. Even if Saddam had no weapons in his posession during the weeks leading up to OP Iraqi Freedom, the point is that he killed thousands of innocents in the previous years. Think of it like this: You know a serial killer has killed over 50 people, and he has an huge lot of different weapons. But over the last few weeks, he gets rid of them. Now, do you say: Hmm, he doesn't have them anymore so I guess we're all safe. OR, do you take out this sucker for what he did and will likely do again? I think we all know the answer to that one. :cantbeli:

You mean the use of WMDs to kill 5000 kurds? Why didnt the U.S invade then when it was happening? Or why did the U.S urge the Iraqi people to rise up after the first Gulf War when the West left those same people high and dry and they were easily put down by Saddam. If you know a serial killer is guilty, why give that same killer victims or stand by while he kills more victims? Does that same killer have to kill someone related to you before you'll arrest him?

[XASA]

Lets just call it the Balkans because if you want to get "technical", I don't recall it ever being called Bosina...


do you remember their title when they went into Bosina?

You got the gist of what I was sayin.

The fact is, the republicans have never undermined public confidence in President Clinton during a time of war by questioning his credibility and raising doubts about the direction of the country while U.S. troops were fighting on foreign soil.

I think the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton, didn't they? If that's not undermining public confidence, nothing is ;)

The last time I check there were Democrats as well as Republicans fighting for the U.S. That's always been the case in time of war. To disagree with an administration, especially when there are reasons to disagree, is the American way. Or would you rather have an electorate that blindly follows its leaders regardless of their actions? To demonize half the country because they have doubts about the current administration is straight out of the Karl Rove play book on how to steal an election, or have the hard core Republicans here forgotten that Bush fell far short of winning by a landslide?

[usa320]

The UN security council Unanimously approve US written resolution 1441, which demanded Iraq cooperate or face the threat of force.

The following Countries supported the war in Iraq, the ones in bold supplied troops. Countries in Italics gave support either with Airbases or Naval units in the Persian gulf.

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Ruwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, Canada.

[Secret Squirrel]

The UN security council Unanimously approve US written resolution 1441, which demanded Iraq cooperate or face the threat of force.

The following Countries supported the war in Iraq, the ones in bold supplied troops. Countries in Italics gave support either with Airbases or Naval units in the Persian gulf.

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Ruwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, Canada.

Italy and Japan had troops on the ground during the invasion? Spain did too? Yep thats a long list of nobodies. Go look at the list of Countries who were in Bosina.

[OB Kenobi]

[quote=Bacilluspolymyxa] The first attack on the Twin Towers, Clinton/Gore did nothing. The bombing of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Clinton/Gore did nothing. The Kenya bombing, Clinto/Gore did nothing. The bombing of the Cole, Clinton/Gore did nothing. What else would one expect from Gore? Given their record on fighting terrorism, they've would've persued it as a law enforcement problem.

Not only did Clinton do nothing, he even supported Islamic terror in Yugoslavia and Chechnya. But, the same thing can be said about Bush-Reagan in Afghanistan, or the support of narco-terror in South America. Furthermore, Clinton inherited the Iraq problem from Bush Sr. Maybe the question should be why did Bush Sr. allow the Taliban to gain power? Why did Bush Sr. do nothing about Osama Bin Laden, a relative of his business associates?

Do you even realize that Salem Bin Laden bailed out Bush W's oil company? That is a pretty direct business dealing I'd say, not exactly something complete strangers do. Then there's their investments in BCCI, the Bush family didn't hestite for a second to get a hold of all that nice terror $$$.

So why do politicians do these things? Why do they make deals with our enemies? Or why do they seemingly ignore the obvious? This is a complicated issue, each leader has different reasons for what they did at the time, and alot of it has to do with the deals they're making under the table that you won't know about for years... if ever.



Honestly, if Al Gore had been elected president, after September 11th we would have surrendered our sovereignty to the United Nations and he'd still would have been appointing committees to discuss how 9-11 was all our fault.

How would we surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations!? I guess the idea of International Law doesn't appeal to you. Maybe you feel that America for some reason is above the law.

If Gore was president (not that I am any fan of Gore, or a Demonrat), we would have created an international coalition with legitimacy in the world. We would NOT have attacked Iraq, the nations of the world together would deal with the terrorists by systematically shutting down their operations and funding, rather than kill and devastate thousands of innocent people. We would have no tolerance for religious fundamentalism of all kinds instead of promoting Judeo-Christian fundamentalism in favor of the Islamic kind.

Who knows, maybe even Saddam would have helped if you'd stop bombing him for one minute to let him work out a deal.

No, what's really going on here is in a way what you yourself mentioned. Bush is attempting to marginalize the UN, Bush wants America to be the leader of the world, literally.

No one is going to put up with that, and America will end up the same way the USSR did. If you want to keep on trying, then as they say, "bring it on," just don't expect sympathy for your arrogant foolishness.

[usa320]

Who knows, maybe even Saddam would have helped if you'd stop bombing him for one minute to let him work out a deal.


Put the crack pipe down.

[usa320]

rather than kill and devastate thousands of innocent people.

What you ignore is the tens of thousands of not so innocent people weve killed.

[usa320]

Italy and Japan had troops on the ground during the invasion? Spain did too? Yep thats a long list of nobodies. Go look at the list of Countries who were in Bosina.

See your argument is so moot, so weak that instead of formulating a decent response all you can do is belittle people with more courage than yourself.

The UK is nobody? Australia is a nobody? Tell that to the SBS. Tell that to SASR. Tell it too the god damn royal airforce. You are the only nobody here.

[Secret Squirrel]

Italy and Japan had troops on the ground during the invasion? Spain did too? Yep thats a long list of nobodies. Go look at the list of Countries who were in Bosina.

See your argument is so moot, so weak that instead of formulating a decent response all you can do is belittle people with more courage than yourself.

The UK is nobody? Australia is a nobody? Tell that to the SBS. Tell that to SASR. Tell it too the god damn royal airforce. You are the only nobody here.

My point is, if i had to spell it out for you, is the U.S had one major ally in this war, which was Britain. Blair only went along to gain political favor with Bush. During the Invasion, there was, if i recall correctly, Americans, Brits, Aussies, and Polish troops. The coalition, as people describe, it all smoke and mirrors with a few troops or money here, and a couple of civilians there to form a coalition of 28 or so? Come on, do you really consider this a strong coalition? It was a U.S pre-emptive war, a U.S led war, and it'll go down in history, like Vietnam(not comparing it to vietnam situationally, just the fact that you dont hear mention of 50,000 Aussies who fought in Vietnam), as a U.S war.

[usa320]

What it will go down as in History is a war that finally brough a single ray of hope to people that faced decades of nothing but famine, poverty, brutality and tyranny.

Quite frankly, I think 20 years from now, it will be viewed as only a single campaign in a broader war.

What we know as Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom- the Global War on Terror, will probably be written in history books somewhere along the lines of World War III...and it will have the same outcome as world war II did. The war will be long. There will be great sacrifice. But in the end the forces of free nations will triumph over tryranny and murderers. And terrorism will go to histories unmarked grave of discarded lies, and that ideology will rest in the same hell that communism, naziism and totalitarianism rest.

[catdat]

Snap Quiz: Who said and when?


I will turn now to the issue of terrorism. This is one that keeps me awake at night.We are seeing a whole new breed of terrorist - terrorists who don't need to be tethered to state sponsors for financial or technical support. Terrorists who have their own international networks. Usama bin Ladin exemplifies this new breed. He runs his own international web with operatives in at least 60 countries. I want you to think about that. He's not above blowing up our embassies with truck bombs, but he has also shown an active interest in chemical weapons. In fact, he has called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction "a religious duty." Last December, Bin Ladin declared that every American taxpayer is a target.

[Secret Squirrel]

What it will go down as in History is a war that finally brough a single ray of hope to people that faced decades of nothing but famine, poverty, brutality and tyranny.

Quite frankly, I think 20 years from now, it will be viewed as only a single campaign in a broader war.

What we know as Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom- the Global War on Terror, will probably be written in history books somewhere along the lines of World War III...and it will have the same outcome as world war II did. The war will be long. There will be great sacrifice. But in the end the forces of free nations will triumph over tryranny and murderers. And terrorism will go to histories unmarked grave of discarded lies, and that ideology will rest in the same hell that communism, naziism and totalitarianism rest.

and about this strong and plentiful coalition you suggested earlier? rofl

[usa320]

And about you Captain Sarcasm...are you ready to stop being an asshat, put down the bong and realize that you havent a ****less clue in hell what is going on in this world?

[Sir Zach of R.]

This strong and plentiful coalition is keeping your butt free to say the things you want, and until you come up with a believable argument I'm going to continue to consider you an ass. Literally.

edit: I was talking to SecretRodent

[Secret Squirrel]

This strong and plentiful coalition is keeping your butt free to say the things you want, and until you come up with a believable argument I'm going to continue to consider you an ass. Literally.

If you want to believe that dellusion, well thats your dream world to live in. This war only made the world a lot less safe. Instead of focusing on Ghanny, someone decided to kick the ant hill a couple more times.

[Secret Squirrel]

And about you Captain Sarcasm...are you ready to stop being an asshat, put down the bong and realize that you havent a ****less clue in hell what is going on in this world?

aww you dont have anymore points to make? rofl rofl

[usa320]

yeah- i forgot- i have on more point to make...

Your an ignoramus.

That is all.

[seruriermarshal]

yeah- i forgot- i have on more point to make...

Your an ignoramus.

That is all.


Right ! woot woot woot

[Secret Squirrel]

yeah- i forgot- i have on more point to make...

Your an ignoramus.

That is all.

It is "you're" not "your". If YOU'RE going to insult my intelligence, at least make sure YOUR grammar is correct. rofl

[usa320]

GRAMMER NAZI would like to remind everyone that how we spell reflects our undestanding of current events, military affairs and politics.

Thank you.

[Secret Squirrel]

GRAMMER NAZI would like to remind everyone that how we spell reflects our undestanding of current events, military affairs and politics.

Thank you.

I just thought it was amusing. You were trying to insult my intelligence in a post but instead accomplished the opposite. rofl

[cut]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

And Saddam have WMD .

rofl rofl

people say the press is liberal propaganda and then openly accept the article and the start of this thread. You shoud take everything with a pinch of salt.

Where are your friend HELEX ?

I criticised helex, would you like me to show you? unlike you I don't stick to one strict ideology, I make my own mind up.

[seruriermarshal]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

And Saddam have WMD .

rofl rofl

people say the press is liberal propaganda and then openly accept the article and the start of this thread. You shoud take everything with a pinch of salt.

Where are your friend HELEX ?

I criticised helex, would you like me to show you? unlike you I don't stick to one strict ideology, I make my own mind up.

No , long time haven't see him , so I ask you .

[AFG]

yeah- i forgot- i have on more point to make...

Your an ignoramus.

That is all.

It is "you're" not "your". If YOU'RE going to insult my intelligence, at least make sure YOUR grammar is correct. rofl


ducimus?

[usa320]

hmmmmm.........

[cut]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

And Saddam have WMD .

rofl rofl

people say the press is liberal propaganda and then openly accept the article and the start of this thread. You shoud take everything with a pinch of salt.

Where are your friend HELEX ?

I criticised helex, would you like me to show you? unlike you I don't stick to one strict ideology, I make my own mind up.

No , long time haven't see him , so I ask you .

sorry your poor english confused me

I've been posting for well over a year, long before HELEX registered and helex, I think, was banned.

[AFG]

yup has been here for a long time

[seruriermarshal]

The US has done about 90% of that. :bash:

Ghanny was the war on terror, Iraq was Bush on a power trip. Bush can claim Iraq and everything thats going to come out of it. But theres a reason why its all pinned on the U.S...there arent many other countries that want to fight with them; whether its due to friendly fire (which the U.S excells at) or ****-eyed policies and lack of planning.

And Saddam have WMD .

rofl rofl

people say the press is liberal propaganda and then openly accept the article and the start of this thread. You shoud take everything with a pinch of salt.

Where are your friend HELEX ?

I criticised helex, would you like me to show you? unlike you I don't stick to one strict ideology, I make my own mind up.

No , long time haven't see him , so I ask you .

sorry your poor english confused me

I've been posting for well over a year, long before HELEX registered and helex, I think, was banned.

Thank you very much .

[Tane Angle]

XASA, beautiful post, my friend.

4 U.S. military personnel killed in Afghanistan
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16061&sid=ea93726ffaea3c9d394f6085c3808abf We forget Afghanistan too easily.

Two shells do not count as a stockpile, and they sure as heck aren't worth the hundreds dead. All indications say that the users didn't even know what they had.

And you want to talk about humanitarian reasons? 4 million innocent civilians were slaughtered in genocide in the past three years in the Congo. Why not go in there? Hussein hadn't killed that many in the last decade of his rule, much less the last three years. There were more pressing humanitarian concerns.

And terrorism? No sir. Hussein, while he did provide monetary incentives for would-be suicide bombers, was hardly the largest support of terrorism among the Middle East dictators.

Iraq and "WOT" are two different things. It's a seesaw though; for every person we send to Iraq, that's one who isn't in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Think we have all that many people capable of locating and tracking terrorists in the world? If they are brought in to track Sadrists or Baathists or whoever, that's means they are not going after AQO. Maybe if we had unlimited search capabilities I wouldn’t mind so much. But the fact remains that we have very finite capabilities, and thus it is best to conserve them for the most critical tasks.

Also, what is the deal with this "the Democrats are anti-America/anti-troops" stuff? Do you all honestly believe that arch-Democrat Ted Kennedy has any less love for his country than George Bush? Let's not forget who Senator Kennedy's brothers were. He lost one brother to war and two others to assassins. He's dedicated his life to doing what he thought they would have done, to making up for their short lives. If he doesn't like Bush for getting people killed perhaps unnecessarily, perhaps it is because he doesn't want others to suffer the same pain.

Has anyone here even considered that possibility? That Ted Kennedy and many other Democrats actually know what they're talking about from personal experience?

Should I bring up the fact that at least Jimmy Carter authorized a hostage rescue operation. However flawed for a number of reasons, at least he said “Go.” Good old Republican Reagan refused to authorize needed operations in Lebanon and Laos to recover our people. Are we to believe that Republicans are weak on terrorism? Because arch-Republican Reagan sure was. We lost 241 Marines in one attack and we did squat.

And if we’re really going to slander one party or another, let’s not forget that Bush Sr. seemed pretty dang ready and willing to abandon the rebellion in Iraq ten years ago. And that Reagan didn’t say a thing when those weapons were being used on Iraqi citizens. At least Clinton intervened during the latter part of his presidency. Neither one of them did. I would certainly not believe that Republicans are genocide-tolerant, but if we’re going to make outrageous generalizations about either party, it works both ways.

President Bush and the United States of America (and the American people) are very different things. I would give everything I have and am for my country and my people. Indeed, because he is the President of the United States, if necessary, I would give my life for President Bush. It is specifically because President Bush has gotten people killed needlessly that I am so disenchanted with him and his administration. Rumsfeld and Bush sent in an untrained, tiny military to do the job of a huge, expertly-trained one. I'm not saying the US military is not well-trained, because it is, exceptionally so. But it is seriously lacking critical skills, particularly ones involving cultural and language studies.

If we had taken a few years to build up our force and to provide the proper training, I might actually like the man. But what is this "it's all the fault of the anti-American Democrats" talk? Rumsfeld isn't a Democrat. Bush isn't a Democrat. But they are the National Command Authority. As commander-in-chief, Bush should have made sure those under his command had adequate training. If they weren't getting the training, he should have taken measures to remedy that problem. He did not. The buck stops there.

Believe me; I cannot stand Clinton anymore than I can stand Bush. I think it's well-enough-known around here that I haven't actually even liked a US President since John F. Kennedy. At least he and Ike grasped the concept of high-risk, low-level conflict.

Bush talks big, but he doesn’t walk it. He says he’s tough on terrorism. Fine, then why didn’t we put as much of an effort into Afghanistan as we did in Iraq. Several times we repeated the mistake of over-relying on local forces in operations against the hideouts. One time would be expectable, but after that I’d say send more troops, not a measly 9,000. Afghanistan is a big, rugged, rough country, and sending a token number won’t cut it, I’m sorry.

Bush wants to win in Iraq? And he wants to fight terrorism? Last year the DLI expelled (and the US military discharged) 37 personnel for homo******ity-related charges. Most were studying Arabic. You know how much good even ten additional speakers could do? They don't grow on trees, and maybe if we had those 37 personnel we would have been able to save at least one death. People are always saying how one has to be ruthless, morally-Machiavellian, to fight terrorism. Well if the ends is to listen to conversations between one suspected terrorist and another, maybe the means is to get more Arabic speakers? The more we have, the quicker things get done. And this isn't about unit cohesion here (never mind that the Western nations who have tried "open"-units haven't had too much trouble with it). Most would have gone to work for DIA. CIA does fine with homo****** interpreters and analysts, why can't DIA with uniformed personnel? We need those 37 people. Kicking them out weakens our abilities.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts…

[chauncy republicans]

Xasa, Tane angle... Excellent posts!

[OB Kenobi]

Who knows, maybe even Saddam would have helped if you'd stop bombing him for one minute to let him work out a deal.


Put the crack pipe down.

Care to name one time Saddam has attacked Europe or the US? Come on, just one time... is there any?

[OB Kenobi]

rather than kill and devastate thousands of innocent people.

What you ignore is the tens of thousands of not so innocent people weve killed.

Which of these not so innocent people are you referring to? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Trigger]

Great post budanski


XASA, beautiful post, my friend.

4 U.S. military personnel killed in Afghanistan
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16061&sid=ea93726ffaea3c9d394f6085c3808abf We forget Afghanistan too easily. Who has forgotten Afghanistan?

Two shells do not count as a stockpile, and they sure as heck aren't worth the hundreds dead. All indications say that the users didn't even know what they had. I guess it's a good thing they went off in Iraq rather than LA.

And you want to talk about humanitarian reasons? 4 million innocent civilians were slaughtered in genocide in the past three years in the Congo. Why not go in there? Hussein hadn't killed that many in the last decade of his rule, much less the last three years. There were more pressing humanitarian concerns.

And terrorism? No sir. Hussein, while he did provide monetary incentives for would-be suicide bombers, was hardly the largest support of terrorism among the Middle East dictators. I bet he had more terrorist training camps than the Congo did.

Iraq and "WOT" are two different things. It's a seesaw though; for every person we send to Iraq, that's one who isn't in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Think we have all that many people capable of locating and tracking terrorists in the world? If they are brought in to track Sadrists or Baathists or whoever, that's means they are not going after AQO. Maybe if we had unlimited search capabilities I wouldn’t mind so much. But the fact remains that we have very finite capabilities, and thus it is best to conserve them for the most critical tasks.

Also, what is the deal with this "the Democrats are anti-America/anti-troops" stuff? Do you all honestly believe that arch-Democrat Ted Kennedy has any less love for his country than George Bush? Let's not forget who Senator Kennedy's brothers were. He lost one brother to war and two others to assassins. He's dedicated his life to doing what he thought they would have done, to making up for their short lives. If he doesn't like Bush for getting people killed perhaps unnecessarily, perhaps it is because he doesn't want others to suffer the same pain. Then the honorable (haha) Mr. Kennedy needs to seriously get a new advisor. The stuff that flies out of his mouth would have his brothers spinning in their graves. I understand partisan politics but jeeeezus.

Has anyone here even considered that possibility? That Ted Kennedy and many other Democrats actually know what they're talking about from personal experience? Are we talking about drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident?...wait, what was the question again?

Should I bring up the fact that at least Jimmy Carter authorized a hostage rescue operation. However flawed for a number of reasons, at least he said “Go.” Good old Republican Reagan refused to authorize needed operations in Lebanon and Laos to recover our people. Are we to believe that Republicans are weak on terrorism? Because arch-Republican Reagan sure was. We lost 241 Marines in one attack and we did squat. Why did those Marines not have loaded weapons? Seriously. I don't know. Who set that policy?

And if we’re really going to slander one party or another, let’s not forget that Bush Sr. seemed pretty dang ready and willing to abandon the rebellion in Iraq ten years ago. And that Reagan didn’t say a thing when those weapons were being used on Iraqi citizens. At least Clinton intervened during the latter part of his presidency. Neither one of them did. I would certainly not believe that Republicans are genocide-tolerant, but if we’re going to make outrageous generalizations about either party, it works both ways.

President Bush and the United States of America (and the American people) are very different things. I would give everything I have and am for my country and my people. Indeed, because he is the President of the United States, if necessary, I would give my life for President Bush. It is specifically because President Bush has gotten people killed needlessly that I am so disenchanted with him and his administration. Rumsfeld and Bush sent in an untrained, tiny military to do the job of a huge, expertly-trained one. I'm not saying the US military is not well-trained, because it is, exceptionally so. But it is seriously lacking critical skills, particularly ones involving cultural and language studies.

If we had taken a few years to build up our force and to provide the proper training, I might actually like the man. But what is this "it's all the fault of the anti-American Democrats" talk? Rumsfeld isn't a Democrat. Bush isn't a Democrat. But they are the National Command Authority. As commander-in-chief, Bush should have made sure those under his command had adequate training. If they weren't getting the training, he should have taken measures to remedy that problem. He did not. The buck stops there.

Believe me; I cannot stand Clinton anymore than I can stand Bush. I think it's well-enough-known around here that I haven't actually even liked a US President since John F. Kennedy. At least he and Ike grasped the concept of high-risk, low-level conflict.

Bush talks big, but he doesn’t walk it. He says he’s tough on terrorism. Fine, then why didn’t we put as much of an effort into Afghanistan as we did in Iraq. Several times we repeated the mistake of over-relying on local forces in operations against the hideouts. One time would be expectable, but after that I’d say send more troops, not a measly 9,000. Afghanistan is a big, rugged, rough country, and sending a token number won’t cut it, I’m sorry. OK so we're supposed to win hearts and minds and not appear as this massive conquering force how?

Bush wants to win in Iraq? And he wants to fight terrorism? Last year the DLI expelled (and the US military discharged) 37 personnel for homo******ity-related charges. Are you suggesting that Bush was directly involved in discharging these 37 people? Most were studying Arabic. You know how much good even ten additional speakers could do? They don't grow on trees, and maybe if we had those 37 personnel we would have been able to save at least one death. People are always saying how one has to be ruthless, morally-Machiavellian, to fight terrorism. Well if the ends is to listen to conversations between one suspected terrorist and another, maybe the means is to get more Arabic speakers? The more we have, the quicker things get done. And this isn't about unit cohesion here (never mind that the Western nations who have tried "open"-units haven't had too much trouble with it). Most would have gone to work for DIA. CIA does fine with homo****** interpreters and analysts, why can't DIA with uniformed personnel? We need those 37 people. Kicking them out weakens our abilities.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts…
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, only make a few counterpoints. So please don't take what I'm saying in a bad way Tane. You know I respect your opinions.

[mocking_loudly_died]

oooh, some good juicy points on both sides. Right now I'm invading this pie and there are no UN officials to stop its impending genocide.

Die pie!

[Trigger]

You have no right to invade that pie! I bet you're a lousy draft dodging coke head!

[mocking_loudly_died]

You have no right to invade that pie! I bet you're a lousy draft dodging coke head!

I'm smoking weed and disobeying my superiors, I'm like Marlon Brando except I can act without cotton wool in my mouth.

Trigger goes to peace rallies with me - shhhhh

:D

[Tane Angle]

Who has forgotten Afghanistan?
It seems to have taken a backseat in terms of which war has priority over resources.


I guess it's a good thing they went off in Iraq rather than LA.
While it is extremely difficult to successfully detonae binary arty rounds without a tube, it is very true that they could have done tremendous damage had they detonated in an urban area.


I bet he had more terrorist training camps than the Congo did. Probably true, my friend. I was just saying that I don't completely buy the humanitarian reasons. It is worth noting though that Hussein and AQO don't exactly have a mutually-affectinate relationship. I'm pretty sure that until Bush started calling for war in Iraq, UBL and Hussein made the occassional death threats against one another.

About Ted Kennedy's personal life... :roll: ....I try to keep the barrier between their personal and public lives intact. He's a rich white guy who works for people who aren't like him. I can respect that. Personal life... we may be in agreement on that. But Senator Kennedy is just an example, as he is sometimes called the "arch-Democract." He's hardly the only Democrat to have had family serve in the military.


Why did those Marines not have loaded weapons? Seriously. I don't know. Who set that policy?
That was an extremely political decision. Reagan had said that we were going there to make things peaceful. Well, if we had made things so peaceful, surely our Marines did not need loaded weapons, right?

The decisions to not actually respond to the attacks (or to rescue the hostages or the POWs in Laos) were also extremely political. Reagan had already said that there were no POWs in SE Asia, so how could they all of a sudden be rescued if they weren't there to begin with? And the hostages...Reagan was worried it would make things rough back in Washington, not to mention with a few other nations, Syria in particular. But mostly he wasn't willing to risk the possibility of a failed mission, or an extremely costly success. He thought it would cost him (and later, his Congressional buddies) votes. From my humble knowledge, the rescue force was ready and willing to perform the rescue, even with the high risks. The Israelis have long succeeded in penetrating deep into the slums with their hit teams. We could have too.


OK so we're supposed to win hearts and minds and not appear as this massive conquering force how? I'd say more of both. We don't have enough SF/CA there, so we're having trouble with the hearts and minds. But nothing does peace enforcement like another brigade or two. It's a big country, the 10th Mountain's rotated brigade can't be everywhere.


Are you suggesting that Bush was directly involved in discharging these 37 people? No, of course not. But the man isn't known for his warm, fuzzy feelings towards homo******s, now is he? Honestly... when it comes to fighting terrorism, one must sleep (no pun intended) with who they have to in order to get the job done. Perhaps if President Bush pushed for even an exception for those 37 personnel, things might be different. I think that if he either pushed for a change in the policy entirely or asked for that exception, it would be granted.

I mean it about doing what we have to. If a few more language experts can save a life, let's change the policy at least for select jobs and personnel.

Don't worry bud, sarcasm's a good thing sometimes, and you know that I respect your opinions as well. How are you doing, by the way? Hope all is well over there. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Trigger]

...the horror....





the horror...

edit: this was in response to my pie eating friend MLD...

Thanks for the reply Tane. Things are good. I'm officially old. :D

[budanski]

How would we surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations!? I guess the idea of International Law doesn't appeal to you. Maybe you feel that America for some reason is above the law.
I've mentioned this before. International law" is nothing but a fiction. There is no over-arching "government" of international proportions that has authority or power over sovereign nations. The POTUS first and foremost abide and uphold to the consitution of the US, not to the will of some international body.


If Gore was president (not that I am any fan of Gore, or a Demonrat), we would have created an international coalition with legitimacy in the world. We would NOT have attacked Iraq, the nations of the world together would deal with the terrorists by systematically shutting down their operations and funding, rather than kill and devastate thousands of innocent people. We would have no tolerance for religious fundamentalism of all kinds instead of promoting Judeo-Christian fundamentalism in favor of the Islamic kind.
So it is only when Germany and France joins, that will officially make it a "legitimate" international coalition? Last counted, there were over 45+ countries that were part of "coalition of the willing". Many here have belittled some of the nations that have joined, but it turns out that this coalition surpassed the numbers in the first Gulf War (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm). Seems more "international" than the last, don't it?

[Tane Angle]

Trigger, I'm looking for a picture of "you" at a protest. I've been trying to find a good picture of a rally with a really ridiculous poster. p-)

PS: Anyone ever have the problem of once they start eating Ritz crackers they don't stop until the whole roll is gone?

[Trigger]

Trigger, I'm looking for a picture of "you" at a protest. I've been trying to find a good picture of a rally with a really ridiculous poster. p-) I'll have to 'find' a good one for you. :D

PS: Anyone ever have the problem of once they start eating Ritz crackers they don't stop until the whole roll is gone?
I'm like that with fig newtons.

[mocking_loudly_died]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/protestors.jpg

rofl

We love trees too.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm


Now who was it that said there wasnt many countries that were contributing and the US was doing it all by themselves?

[budanski]

How dare Al Gore disgrace this nation
Boston Herald (http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=29658)
Friday, May 28, 2004

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040526/capt.sge.tvp37.260504204414.photo00.default-266x384.jpg

He never mentioned Nicholas Berg. Or Daniel Pearl. Or a single person killed in the World Trade Center. Nor did former Vice President Al Gore talk of any soldier by name who has given his life in Iraq. And he has the audacity to condemn the Bush administration for having ``twisted values?''

Gore spent the bulk of a speech before the liberal group MoveOn.org Wednesday bemoaning Abu Ghraib and denouncing President Bush's departure from the ``long successful strategy of containment.''

Yes, the very same strategy that, under Gore's leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders.

Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush [related, bio] for ``humiliating'' our nation.

How dare he. How dare a former vice president of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush as ``incompetent.''

How dare Gore say that Americans have an ``innate vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'' And that our own ``internal system of checks and balances cannot be relied upon'' to curb such abuse.

And this man - who apparently has so much disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to lead it?

It is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being once held the second highest office in this great land.

http://www.indystar.com/images/pics2/section-image-069169-2353.jpg

[OB Kenobi]

[quote=OB Kenobi]How would we surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations!? I guess the idea of International Law doesn't appeal to you. Maybe you feel that America for some reason is above the law.

I've mentioned this before. International law" is nothing but a fiction. There is no over-arching "government" of international proportions that has authority or power over sovereign nations. The POTUS first and foremost abide and uphold to the consitution of the US, not to the will of some international body.

There is no over-arching government, but there IS international law, laws that exist which civilized nations have claimed they will follow. From the Geneva Convention, to the UN, the ICC, to the Kyoto Protocol, trade laws, weapon proliferation laws, human rights laws. Instead of strengthening these laws, Bush has weakened them and turned America into the world's #1 target.

Bush refuses to work with other nations as equal partners, he seeks to subjugate the entire world.


So it is only when Germany and France joins, that will officially make it a "legitimate" international coalition? Last counted, there were over 45+ countries that were part of "coalition of the willing". Many here have belittled some of the nations that have joined, but it turns out that this coalition surpassed the numbers in the first Gulf War (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm). Seems more "international" than the last, don't it?

First of all, don't post propaganda from right-wing think tanks and expect it to be taken seriously. Second of all, only a dozen of those 45 nations actually contributed anything of significance, and only these contributed combat troops:

Albania: 70
Australia: 2000
Poland: 200
Romania: 278
UK: 45,000

The rest contributed peacekeeping forces and civilian contractors. As you know, some of the larger contributors have since pulled out with more due to leave soon after June 30th.

What I'm saying is, most of "smaller" nations in the coalition didn't risk anything and hardly contributed anything of significance, and they did it not because they believe in what was being done but because they were either paid upfront, or are seeking to gain favor from the US.

Lastly, the majority of people in those coalition nations opposed the war, their governments made the choice and quite a few of those politicians have put an end to their careers through that choice.

But the numbers don't matter, what matters is legitimacy. The Iraqis view this as an invasion by America, and Bush is solely responsible for creating that perception.

[budanski]

There is no over-arching government, but there IS international law, laws that exist which civilized nations have claimed they will follow. From the Geneva Convention, to the UN, the ICC, to the Kyoto Protocol, trade laws, weapon proliferation laws, human rights laws. Instead of strengthening these laws, Bush has weakened them and turned America into the world's #1 target.

Bush refuses to work with other nations as equal partners, he seeks to subjugate the entire world.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Your UN, ICC and 'international jurists' are paper tigers. Without the money and power of the U.S. they are empty vessels. These international bodies, propped up by the american left to prop up these court jesters with money and military might, in the end they all think the wealth of hard-working Americans is their honey pot. No court or law is worth the paper its charter is written on without enforcement. And just who do these elitists think should pay and equip the enforcement organs? The ones who will 'allow' international enforcement upon American citizens without 'Constitutional recourse'?

Oh, the hypocrisy (http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=c3ddbc1d-e317-45f6-bce9-8855b3ba1b76), whats the good of Kyoto when they're not even abiding by it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm)?

The sole purpose of the Kyoto Accord was to cripple the US economy. As written it would actually have hurt some other countries (Canada and Russia) worse than it hurt us but that would have just been collateral damage. The US was the target of a global economic conspiracy to destroy our industry and impoverish our people, perpetrated by some of our closest "allies". Even some are realizing it is now not worth crippling their own economies for the sake of the enviroment. ie: Germany (http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=30502)


First of all, don't post propaganda from right-wing think tanks and expect it to be taken seriously.
Oh really? A right-wing think tank publishes the number that is backed up by others and states the obvious you discredit. How about we use a left-wing outlet then, say... the BBC? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2870487.stm) They've pretty much say the same as well.


Second of all, only a dozen of those 45 nations actually contributed anything of significance, and only these contributed combat troops:

Albania: 70
Australia: 2000
Poland: 200
Romania: 278
UK: 45,000

The rest contributed peacekeeping forces and civilian contractors. As you know, some of the larger contributors have since pulled out with more due to leave soon after June 30th.

What I'm saying is, most of "smaller" nations in the coalition didn't risk anything and hardly contributed anything of significance, and they did it not because they believe in what was being done but because they were either paid upfront, or are seeking to gain favor from the US.

Lastly, the majority of people in those coalition nations opposed the war, their governments made the choice and quite a few of those politicians have put an end to their careers through that choice.

But the numbers don't matter, what matters is legitimacy. The Iraqis view this as an invasion by America, and Bush is solely responsible for creating that perception.
Its always a good thing to have countries helping you out, but when you make statements that the aide these countries made were insignificant, it's disrespectful to what the Brits, Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Japanese, Hondurans, Ukranians, etc. have all done. The numbers don't add up as this being "unilateral".

Yep - a complete diplomatic failure on the part of the President.... only 10–15 more (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030320-11.html) countries than were with us in the first Gulf War. :roll:

[Secret Squirrel]

Its always a good thing to have countries helping you out, but when you make statements that the aide these countries made were insignificant, it's disrespectful to what the Brits, Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Japanese, Hondurans, Ukranians, etc. have all done. The numbers don't add up as this being "unilateral".

Yep - a complete diplomatic failure on the part of the President.... only 10–15 more (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030320-11.html) countries than were with us in the first Gulf War. :roll:

Well lets see...who did we have in the first Gulf War. If I recall correctly, the military coalition consisted of Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The war also was financed by countries which were unable to send in troops. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were the main donors. More than $53 billion was pledged and received. Now, who do we have for Bush's pre-emptive war? Well during the invasion there was four countries...2 major players (U.S and U.K), with Blair trying to crawl up Bush's ass. Now people are quick to shout, "oh lookie how big our coalition is this time in Iraq!!!" when its all smoke and mirrors. "Here you go coalition, you can walk over my ground or piss in my toilet but you have to mention my country as part of your coalition." The idea that this is a coalition, to me personally, is a joke as its Bush on power trip, Blair up his ass, and others making "small" contributions to gain "big" favor. Hope you realize that when people critize this "coalition" as compared to previous endeavors they do so on the basis of quality over quanity. If this was proper coalition, would the U.S have 135,000 plus troops there with a mere 6 or 7 thousand British(not exactly sure on their current numbers?)? I mean the U.K was their "go-to guy" right? Why does the U.S have to field the majority of the troops? Or why cant the British increase their levels instead of teh U.S being forced to extend the TOD of 20,000 soldiers?

[Denat]

Poland: 200
Yeah maybe 20? :cantbeli:

We have more than 2,600 combat troops in Iraq.
Multinational Division Central South is under our command, ever heard about it?

[Tane Angle]

No court or law is worth the paper its charter is written on without enforcement. On this I have to agree with budanski. The judicial branch's US Supreme Court is just another old folks' home without the Executive Branch's enforcement. The same applies elsewhere.

Of course, that would mean that the world would need a serious, dedicated peace enforcement force. The UN has tried this, but the current system seriously flawed. Besides, do nations really want to give up a little more of their self-control? Not that most nations need be concerned about such a force barging in on their land, especially since such forces rely on nations' good graces to send troops and money.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[usa320]

the ICC is a joke, and treating terrorists as your common criminal, so to say trying them and arresting them, is not the way to win this war. That was the policy of the past 2 administrations, and it didnt work. The only way to defeat terrorism is through military, covery, economic AND legal action.

[[AFSOC]]

Talking Politics on this forum is silly

[OB Kenobi]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Watch out, Budanski is busting out the large font size! Don't you know huffing and puffing only works on the Fox News Channel?

Now, can you explain to us what you mean by posting that above? I don't see anything that says the US isn't subject to international law if the US signs onto those treaties.


Your UN, ICC and 'international jurists' are paper tigers. Without the money and power of the U.S. they are empty vessels. These international bodies, propped up by the american left to prop up these court jesters with money and military might, in the end they all think the wealth of hard-working Americans is their honey pot.

Oh man, you must live in a trailer home. Do you realize how little the US spends on this compared to how much it spends on its unilateral interventions and bases throughout the world?

I'm going to say it again, certain leaders in the US, like George Bush, think they can get away with anything in the world because of this supposed "military might." Military might doesn't do **** in peacekeeping and political situations as you can see in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other FAILED unilateral US intervention.

The US could have created a genuine coalition (ofcourse in the case of Iraq most nations thought Bush was wrong) and avoided throwing away 200 billion $$$. $200 BILLION!!! That's your tax money right there, and you're complaining about spending a few million on the UN!?


No court or law is worth the paper its charter is written on without enforcement. And just who do these elitists think should pay and equip the enforcement organs? The ones who will 'allow' international enforcement upon American citizens without 'Constitutional recourse'?

Yeah, I bet you think the UN is going to come in and put a barcode on you, right? Maybe you haven't noticed but Bush, Ashcroft and Microsoft are the ones suggesting such things already. Not because of terrorism, but because they want ever last cent of your tax $$$, your property, and your right to free speech. They don't want you earning a pension, getting healthcare, or having control over your land, they want you to be a disposable consumer.

Maybe you forgot what the Robber Barons used to do to people at the turn of the last century before unions came along. You probably think those unions are "Commies," they're the ones that saved your ass from these corporate crooks! We need the UN for the very same reasons.


The sole purpose of the Kyoto Accord was to cripple the US economy. As written it would actually have hurt some other countries (Canada and Russia) worse than it hurt us but that would have just been collateral damage. The US was the target of a global economic conspiracy to destroy our industry and impoverish our people, perpetrated by some of our closest "allies".

Ok, so who's behind this dastardly plan, and why? Which "allies" do you mean?


Even some are realizing it is now not worth crippling their own economies for the sake of the enviroment. ie: Germany (http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=30502)

He said if Russia doesn't sign. Putin intends on signing it:

http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1399&language=1

That only leaves the US, Australia and Egypt as the last major holdouts.


Second of all, only a dozen of those 45 nations actually contributed anything of significance, and only these contributed combat troops:

Albania: 70
Australia: 2000
Poland: 200
Romania: 278
UK: 45,000




Its always a good thing to have countries helping you out, but when you make statements that the aide these countries made were insignificant, it's disrespectful to what the Brits, Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Japanese, Hondurans, Ukranians, etc. have all done. The numbers don't add up as this being "unilateral".

I said the UK and Polish contributed combat troops. The Italians, Spanish, Japanese and others contributed insignificant non-combat troops. They were there strictly for "peacekeeping," which I guess means beating up civilians in this case.

Btw, where are the Spanish and Hondurans now?


Yep - a complete diplomatic failure on the part of the President.... only 10–15 more (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030320-11.html) countries than were with us in the first Gulf War. :roll:

Who do you think you're fooling by saying that? People can read the news for themselves, they know just as I have shown that only half a dozen countries in the coalition of the not-so-willing contributed anything of significance this time.

Oh sure, if you send 200 troops and 20 of them die, it's a huge tragedy for the pipsqueek coalition member who sent them, but politically and military that means absolutely nothing.

The situation would have been very different if you had 300,000 French, German, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and other EU troops there in addition to the US-UK troops, the terrorists would have been crushed. But, those nations didn't feel the Iraq invasion was necessary, and that might be a valid point that Bush has ignored.

[Trigger]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Watch out, Budanski is busting out the large font size! Don't you know huffing and puffing only works on the Fox News Channel?

^Translation: I've run out of argument and will now commence sprinkling liberal amounts of 'Fox news' comments. No further reading required.

[budanski]

Now, can you explain to us what you mean by posting that above? I don't see anything that says the US isn't subject to international law if the US signs onto those treaties.
I don't know how much more simplier I can make this:

Article. VI. U.S. Constitution

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

While the U.S. Constitution and any laws made under the authority of the U.S. the supreme law of the land, international laws not and are nothing but VOLUNTARY agreements between sovereign states. Countries make an agreement and if the other fails to abide to it, all said agreements are then called off. International institutions derive their authority from inter-state agreements so then international law derives its legitimacy from the VOLUNTARY assent of nation-states. Get the picture yet?


Oh man, you must live in a trailer home. Do you realize how little the US spends on this compared to how much it spends on its unilateral interventions and bases throughout the world?

I'm going to say it again, certain leaders in the US, like George Bush, think they can get away with anything in the world because of this supposed "military might." Military might doesn't do **** in peacekeeping and political situations as you can see in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other FAILED unilateral US intervention.

The US could have created a genuine coalition (ofcourse in the case of Iraq most nations thought Bush was wrong) and avoided throwing away 200 billion $$$. $200 BILLION!!! That's your tax money right there, and you're complaining about spending a few million on the UN!?
So do you think the Dems are privy to same standards as Bush?

"I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United States and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure" "If we ignore these behaviors ... our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. ... We must take unilateral action." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-01-14-dean-bosnia_x.htm)

Unilateral? The United States had spent 12 years providing the spine behind U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (which ended Desert Storm and sanctioned Saddam). Bush was the one who put Resolution 1444 through the Security Council, Saddam's last chance to meet 687's requirements. Bush asked France, Germany, and Russia to join, they declined.

UNILATERLISM - When the U.S., Britain, Spain, Poland, Italy, Australia and other nations act "alone" to finally, after 12 long years of inaction and corruption in the UN act to oust the dictator and mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, from power.

MULTILATERLISM - When France, Germany, Russia and a group of nations act "together" to protect their oil and contract interests in Iraq, to allow members of the corrupt UN "food for oil" program to thwart any action by the UN, and to keep the dictator and mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, in power at the expense of the Iraqi people - UN Resolution 1441 be damned.


Yeah, I bet you think the UN is going to come in and put a barcode on you, right? Maybe you haven't noticed but Bush, Ashcroft and Microsoft are the ones suggesting such things already. Not because of terrorism, but because they want ever last cent of your tax $$$, your property, and your right to free speech. They don't want you earning a pension, getting healthcare, or having control over your land, they want you to be a disposable consumer.

Maybe you forgot what the Robber Barons used to do to people at the turn of the last century before unions came along. You probably think those unions are "Commies," they're the ones that saved your ass from these corporate crooks! We need the UN for the very same reasons.
Unions are "Commies... At last, something we can agree on. ;)

Unions are indistinguishable from criminal conspiracies agaist the citizens - except that the unions have legal cover provided by higher-level poitical thugs. Besides impeding a company's ability to compete and thrive, what are unions good for lately? Everything they claim to protect against is covered by laws and regulations. At one time they did good things, but they have since become worse than the "evil corporations" that they fought against. Unions raised their wages substantially above the wages paid to non-union workers. Therefore, many union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and non-union producers. If unions are indeed still vital, why is less than 15% of our workforce belong to unions as this figure has been dropping even more?


He said if Russia doesn't sign. Putin intends on signing it:

http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1399&language=1

That only leaves the US, Australia and Egypt as the last major holdouts.

Russia originally signed on thinking it would make billions by selling off coal burning rights to the E.U. and mainly the U.S. Since the U.S. opted not to, is there a financial incentive for Russia to now sign? What Putin is doing is just lip service to the E.U.


They were there strictly for "peacekeeping," which I guess means beating up civilians in this case.
As opposed to what? According to Somalians, being roasted over a open flame by the UN peacekeepers instead?

http://pages.prodigy.net/mvrwc/images/un-peace.jpg


The situation would have been very different if you had 300,000 French, German, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and other EU troops there in addition to the US-UK troops, the terrorists would have been crushed. But, those nations didn't feel the Iraq invasion was necessary, and that might be a valid point that Bush has ignored.
I seriously doubt having 300,000 more, if even they could get that much, would make any difference to the insurgencies. Israel has a million plus standing army yet that doesnt stop terrorist attacks there. As I stated, those countries didnt feel Iraq was necessary cause it was obvious of their financial ties to Iraq via oil contracts and "Oil for Food" scandal

[The Walrus]

From the word go Bush has handled the Iraq war appalingly. Though I supported the war, the way Bush has carried it out is disgraceful. He has united all the Islamic extremists and all but destroyed the 'hearts and minds' initiative, which I believe is the only way to solve this war on terror. I'm not bashing Bush for the sake of bashing Bush here, I genuinely believe he has made a giant ****-up of the war on terror, his approach to it smacks of being too busy trying to appeal to the voters at home by his 'tough' rhetoric and stance, being 'commander in chief', war president and all that, rather than concentrating on what would actually defeat the terrorists, by appealing to the arab population and driving a wedge between the moderates and the extremists in arab society. This is not a conventional war, but Bush seems to handle it like one, if this continues it will blow up in all our faces when a fully radicalised middle-east is realised.

[Secret Squirrel]

From the word go Bush has handled the Iraq war appalingly. Though I supported the war, the way Bush has carried it out is disgraceful. He has united all the Islamic extremists and all but destroyed the 'hearts and minds' initiative, which I believe is the only way to solve this war on terror. I'm not bashing Bush for the sake of bashing Bush here, I genuinely believe he has made a giant ****-up of the war on terror, his approach to it smacks of being too busy trying to appeal to the voters at home by his 'tough' rhetoric and stance, being 'commander in chief', war president and all that, rather than concentrating on what would actually defeat the terrorists, by appealing to the arab population and driving a wedge between the moderates and the extremists in arab society. This is not a conventional war, but Bush seems to handle it like one, if this continues it will blow up in all our faces when a fully radicalised middle-east is realised.

Well said. I strongly believe the only way Iraq will be pacified is by winning the hearts and minds. Essentially, the only way to defeat all the insugents and terrorists in Iraq is by turning the local population against them so they'll either 1) not join the insurgents or terrorists, and 2) provide solid grass roots intel.

[budanski]

The arab street can keep their hearts and keep their minds, as long as they keep their ass in line. ;)

[OB Kenobi]

I don't know how much more simplier I can make this:

Article. VI. U.S. Constitution

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

While the U.S. Constitution and any laws made under the authority of the U.S. the supreme law of the land, international laws not and are nothing but VOLUNTARY agreements between sovereign states. Countries make an agreement and if the other fails to abide to it, all said agreements are then called off. International institutions derive their authority from inter-state agreements so then international law derives its legitimacy from the VOLUNTARY assent of nation-states. Get the picture yet?

Quite frankly, no. :D

I think you should explain it some other way, maybe I'm missing something. What in the constitution prohibits the US from following international law? Are you telling me that treaties like the Geneva Convention are optional even if you have signed onto them? Well, that's very interesting, I think someone should tell the Iraqis!



[quote=OB Kenobi]The US could have created a genuine coalition (ofcourse in the case of Iraq most nations thought Bush was wrong) and avoided throwing away 200 billion $$$. $200 BILLION!!! That's your tax money right there, and you're complaining about spending a few million on the UN!?

So do you think the Dems are privy to same standards as Bush?

I think the Dems are crooks in their own way. But not even Clinton has completely flown off the handle the way Bush has. Bush is literally the most corrupt President in the history of the US. Clinton may be second or third, along with Nixon.

I'm not expecting much from Kerry, but at least if Bush lost power, we might have a chance to expose some of the stuff going on. If he's re-elected, it will all be buried, and he'll go on claiming everything is the "terrorist's" fault.



Unilateral? The United States had spent 12 years providing the spine behind U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (which ended Desert Storm and sanctioned Saddam). Bush was the one who put Resolution 1444 through the Security Council, Saddam's last chance to meet 687's requirements. Bush asked France, Germany, and Russia to join, they declined.

Yeah, no kidding. Most nations were in favor of lifting the sanctions and restoring normal relations with Iraq. Clinton and Bush pushed through these resolutions and insisted Saddam had to be removed from power no matter what. Finally, not getting his way, Bush went so far as to lie to the entire planet about Saddam's WMD's, intentions, and capabilities.

Saddam is an idiot for pretending he had WMD for so long. No doubt he hoped this would prevent an invasion, and it would have, but Bush knew (suspected) there was no WMD and THAT is why he invaded, that is why he pulled inspectors out early when they found nothing.



Unions are indistinguishable from criminal conspiracies agaist the citizens - except that the unions have legal cover provided by higher-level poitical thugs. Besides impeding a company's ability to compete and thrive, what are unions good for lately?

Things like pushing for worker's rights, minimum wage, safe working conditions, insurance. They also help prevent outsourcing and the hiring of illegal aliens. Your "capitalist" hero Bush has given away 300,000 non-Union American jobs to a bunch of Commie Hindus over the last few years, if those workers had a Union behind them this outrage would have never happened.

Bush and his white collar crook old boy's club aren't capitalists, they're Oligarchs.




They were there strictly for "peacekeeping," which I guess means beating up civilians in this case.

As opposed to what?

As opposed to combat troops.

[Felix]

People here seem to misunderstand certain things:

There is a difference between the average joe-democrat opposing policy towards Iraq, and those ridiculous, long haired pot-smokin' hippies who are protesting just to be "badasses", and to meet other long haired, unkempt, pot-smokin' hippie females to ****. For them protesting is a social activity.

But many, many democrats, such as myself, oppose the war in Iraq, but whole heartedly support each and every serviceman there. I do especially, because lots of the guys I served with are now in Iraq. I even feel that its a shame I missed it (I left the corps in mid 2002)

[mi35d]

How in the hell can you Libs continue to spew your crapfest? How did President Bush "give away" 300,000 jobs? Presidents don't make or lose jobs. We live in a capitalist country. A country were corporations with stockholders like to see a profit.

This myth that Clinton made jobs or helped the economy is crap. Clinton rode the wave from the corporate restructioning that occured under Reagan / Bush. Companies don't change over night. It takes years to build up profit, production, etc. The other factor is that two of the US's greatest economic competitors hit the skids in the 90's - the Japanese and the Germans. (The Japanese due to a government propped up economy and Germany due to re-unification.) A trained monkey could have run the economy in the 90's. In fact, that's what did happen.

All of the union people whining over "jobs going overseas" have in their retirement funds, stocks for the same major companies that are sending jobs overseas to gain more profit so your retirement fund grows. Get a clue.

[2RHPZ]

]Talking Politics on this forum is silly

Generally I agree, but hey ... where does military end and politics start? Where is the border line?

Read:

Attacking The Attackers

GUEST OPINION: ATTACKING THE ATTACKERS
by Don Bendell

I have written two widely-distributed editorials concerning the actions of democratic Presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry that have circulated the globe. In the first, the more popular, I wrote of my wife's rotator cuff surgery, but I wish to address much deeper wounds. Kerry's people have now said that I have slung mud, and I have. First, I was throwing it back, but more importantly; it was mud compiled from the dirt that has surrounded John Kerry since he first decided to run for President around 1970, mixed in with the blood and tears of those who fought in Vietnam, the men and women that he betrayed.
John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran, but much more so is retired green beret Colonel (Ola) Lee Mize. Lee Mize, as an NCO, received the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Korean War, this nation's highest award for extreme heroism and gallantry in battle, and later retired as a full bird colonel after four full tours in the Vietnam War.
Retired army Sergeant First Class Sammy L. Davis also earned the coveted Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions with the 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam in 1967.
Generals, even Presidents, traditionally salute Medal of Honor recipients when they see them, as these men are so revered. Both of these very special men wanted to give me direct quotes specifically for this editorial concerning John F. Kerry.

Lee Mize said, "What he (John Kerry) did to our Vietnam veterans, throwing his medals over the fence, his testifying before Congress (in 1971), and hanging around with Jane Fonda. Then, never regretting his made-up lies and his testimony, that is a real shame. It is equally disgusting the way he put down our National Guard and our Reserves. He certainly is a two-faced individual."

Sammy Davis, the second MOH recipient I spoke with, said of Kerry, "He has done great disservice to every Vietnam veteran by his actions after he came home from Vietnam. He was in a position of power and could have implemented positive changes for veterans and active duty military personnel during the past 18 years, but he chose not to do so."
When asked on TV, in January, about George W. Bush's record in the Air National Guard, John Kerry mugged for the TV cameras and said, "I am not going to question someone's decision back then to join the National Guard, go to Canada, be a conscientious objector, or go AWOL."
Kerry did not stop to think, when he made such a statement, lumping National Guard service in with being AWOL or a draft dodger, that he was not only dishonoring the 6,077 men who died in Vietnam who were in the National Guard and Reserves, those who trained hard to protect our homeland and be a reserve force, but he also denigrated the 140 recipients of the Congressional
Medal of Honor in our nation's history who were members of the National Guard. That is what I said: 140 Medal of Honor recipients were in the National Guard.
My wife is the most beautiful, but also the toughest individual I know. She is public about being the victim of both acquaintance rape and gang rape, close to thirty years ago. Now, as a fifth degree black belt, a master, she has even been presented the prestigious Jefferson Award, in big part, for teaching women and girls how to fight back and win. In some ways, I have hated it when she prepares to conduct another ****** Assault Prevention Clinic, as she emotionally is raped all over again, and I have to hold her many nights while she cries.
The few who have decried my attempts to call out about the emotional rape of Vietnam veterans by John F. Kerry, have said, "Vietnam was three decades ago. Why bring it up now? Let's talk about today's issues."
You cannot forget a rape. It is a life sentence for the victim. Just ask a Vietnam veteran.
I will not let people forget about the rape of our proud, long-standing strength of America, our military, and its leadership in Vietnam. It was conducted like an acquaintance rape. We were betrayed by one in a position of trust, and that hurts worse than stranger rape.
Let us talk today's facts: John Kerry called us his "Band of Brothers," and now flaunts his hero status to get elected. What has he done for his "Band Brothers?" Each session of Congress is 2 years in length. In the eighties, in the 99th Congress, Kerry's first two years, when you would think he would be full of enthusiasm and eager to fix things, Kerry proposed 1 measly veteran-related bill, S1033. It died. In the 100th Congress, he proposed 1 measly veteran-related bill, S1510. It died, too. The 101st Congress, he proposed 1 measly veteran-related bill, S2128. It also died, but he did propose an amendment to a bill S2884. It died.

Then, in the 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th sessions of Congress, 12 years, Kerry proposed ZERO bills related to veterans issues, his "Band of Brothers."
Finally, in the 108th Congress, closing in on two decades of seniority, but more importantly, deciding to run for the Presidency, Kerry sponsored 1 measly veteran-related bill, S1112. It died.

Now, Chief Hypocrite John F. Kerry, and his ardent supporters, attack Bush to divert his own miserable record, especially as it relates to those he calls his "Band of Brothers." When anybody like me fires back, they are pounced-upon and denounced as "mud-slingers."
Here is some factual mud: George W. Bush has increased military pay 21%. Kerry voted against military pay raises 12 times.

Kerry and his spinners have said that Bush is decimating the Veterans Administration. FACT: According to factscheck.org, Bush's 2005 fiscal budget increases VA funding by 40% over when Bush took office, Bush has cut administrative time in VA by half, the Annenberg Center says that funding for veterans under Bush is increasing twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton, and vets getting health benefits now has increased by over 27% under Bush.
Under previous Presidents, democratic and republican, I always was treated like a bastard stepchild at VA hospitals. Since Bush became President, I am treated like a veteran with respect and dignity and have never had to wait for more than a half an hour for an appointment.

Now Kerry, you and your cronies attack and belittle our commander-in-chief while we are at war, giving more propaganda to the enemy, all for what, . . . votes. Saddam Hussein? Iraq? Your own words and common sense answers that question, definitively.
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F.
Kerry 1/23/03

"disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."- Sen. John F. Kerry, 10/9/02

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking an developing weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted Kennedy, 9/27/02

"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, 2/18/98

FACT: George W. Bush volunteered for extra service time to be trained as a jet pilot, no walk in the park itself, and voluntarily requested the release of 450 pages of his own personal military records, and they have been misrepresented and propagandized to attack him. Kerry touts his war hero status but adamantly refuses to request the public release of his own military records. He is a decorated hero. Being a decorated hero, why would he not release his records? What does he have to hide?

Now, Richard Clarke, an eight-year Clinton loyalist, has conveniently released his supposed tell-all book against the Bush Administration. He now slanders a President he publicly praised in a recorded 2002 news interview for taking a much tougher non-nonsense stance against the Al Q'Aida than his predecessor. I am an author: I know the value of releasing a book that creates controversy; and at this time, releasing this book can potentially put millions into Clarke's pockets. I wish I was releasing a book right now. He said in his book that Bush did nothing militarily until November after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Clarke's words about our military action at that time show how much he was NOT "in-the-loop." Special Forces and Special Operations is a very, very tight-knit community, and most of us, even ones not on active duty anymore, knew that President Bush had two Special Forces (Green Beret) A-Teams on the ground in Afghanistan within 48 hours of the first jet slamming into the World Trade Center. Within two hours of the 9-11 attacks, military plans were underway at USSOCOM headquarters at MacDill AFB, Florida.

Jennifer: roger that, I'm just a girl but even I knew SF teams were launched

What about John Kerry? Once a predator, always a predator. We, the Band of Brothers were his victims once, but we will be silent no more. We choose to be victors, not victims.
We, the 25,000,000 veterans in this country have power, and we have proven we have courage, can get the job done, and function as a team. We will call and write the major sponsors of NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC and tell them we are sick of their news departments spinning the news with subtleties and outright lies against our Commander-in-Chief and in favor of the democratic presidential candidate. We will tell those sponsors we will boycott their products if this is not stopped immediately. We will write to, or e-mail, FOX NEWS and similar organizations, and insist that they have people such as me on to address these issues. I will be happy to go head-to-head with John Kerry, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, or whoever they want to represent their liberal agenda, instead of news reporting like they are supposed to do.

We will talk to our democratic and independent friends and relatives and tell them we all must put our country ahead of political parties.
We all know who the foreign leaders are that want John Kerry in the White House: the leaders of North Korea, Spain, France, the Hammas, PLO, mideast jihadists, overly-zealous mullahs, and let's not forget Osama bin Laden. They are hoping and praying to get George W. Bush out of the White House and John Kerry in. Why is that?
If you actually believe Kerry would do better than Bush on the economy and that is more important to you than our defense, ask yourself this question: How many times have you seen a Brinks truck follow a hearse to a cemetery?
--
Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, including a tour on a green beret A-team in Vietnam in 1968-1969, and was in the Top Secret Phoenix Program, is a top-selling author of westerns, science fiction, and non-fiction Vietnam books, with over 1,500,000 copies of his books in print worldwide, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, a 7th degree black belt master in four martial arts, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado.

[OB Kenobi]

CAG 147, after reading your post, I have decided to vote for Nader.