Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign

[ConcordCowboy]

Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign

White House admits fault on banner seen to declare Iraq victory 5 years ago


http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/COVER/080501/g-pol-080501-bush-mission-hmed-4a.hmedium.jpg
President Bush declares the end of major combat in Iraq as he speaks aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast, on Thursday, May 1, 2003, following the ship's 10-month deployment which included "Operation Iraqi Freedom."



WASHINGTON - The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush’s dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him — a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.

After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the “Mission Accomplished” phrase referred to the carrier’s crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq. Bush, in October 2003, disavowed any connection with the “Mission Accomplished” message. He said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship’s crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor.

“President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said ‘mission accomplished’ for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. “And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.”

She said what is important now is “how the president would describe the fight today. It’s been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy.”

At least 49 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month since September when 65 U.S. troops died.

Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.

Bush, in a speech earlier this month, said that “while this war is difficult, it is not endless.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24400896/&GT1=43001


http://dvmx.com/Bush_codpiece.jpg

[burmafrd]

Sort of reminds me of Jerry Ford's WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now).
Worked about as well.
Hindsight is always 20-20. And that is a problem with todays politics. EVERYONE is concerned with the right now and making the best picture possible AT the moment. Never looking at how it could bite your butt a few years down the line.

[Jordan55]

The bottom line is if we don't complete this mission we will all be paying the price at the pump.

[notherbob]

The bottom line is if we don't complete this mission we will all be paying the price at the pump.

Brainpaint is right, we need to develop alternative sources of energy and new ways to power vehicles without increasing our dependence on oil.

By the way, the price of commercial fertilizers have tripled in the las 18-24 months, as has the price of diesel fuel - what do you think that will do to food prices? Soon, organic food may cost less to produce than conventional food, except for the cost of labor and transportation, of course. Those who own homes better start their own gardens soon.

[Jordan55]

Brainpaint is right, we need to develop alternative sources of energy and new ways to power vehicles without increasing our dependence on oil.

By the way, the price of commercial fertilizers have tripled in the las 18-24 months, as has the price of diesel fuel - what do you think that will do to food prices? Soon, organic food may cost less to produce than conventional food, except for the cost of labor and transportation, of course. Those who own homes better start their own gardens soon.

Couldn't agree with you more, but in the short run so as not to create a major calamity, we need to work on both for good measure.:bow:

[Cajuncowboy]

Who cares? Everyone knows what the connotation meant and that was that Saddam was overthrown. That was the mission and it was accomplished. But people want to bang this same stupid drum over and over again.

This is exactly what I said in an earlier thread. These dopes keep brining it up, over and over again and the uneducated people who listen to it think Bush is a liar, doing a terrible job and all that crap.

When if they would for once be given the truth about things, his poll numbers would not be in the tank the way they are.

[DallasFanSince86]

Who cares? Everyone knows what the connotation meant and that was that Saddam was overthrown. That was the mission and it was accomplished. But people want to bang this same stupid drum over and over again.

This is exactly what I said in an earlier thread. These dopes keep brining it up, over and over again and the uneducated people who listen to it think Bush is a liar, doing a terrible job and all that crap.

When if they would for once be given the truth about things, his poll numbers would not be in the tank the way they are.

:bow:

Very true.

[Jon88]

How much did he have to pay? About $55?

[ChldsPlay]

How much did he have to pay? About $55?

That's a pretty big sign, I'd say $300 at least.

[Brandon]

Ah President Bush, the idiot who gives all our past greats a bad name. Way to go Bush! Now 95% of the world hates us because of your idiotic under table tactics.

[Cajuncowboy]

Ah President Bush, the idiot who gives all our past greats a bad name. Way to go Bush! Now 95% of the world hates us because of your idiotic under table tactics.

Haha. All the world hates us because we have the nads to stand up for ourselves and fight terror.

How much do you think those 95% who hates us come crawling on their hands and knees when they need money, food or any other kind of aid?

Yeah, he's an idiot. He brought this country through one of it's most difficult times in history, but he's an idiot.

He stood up for America and spit in the eye of those who would do us harm.

Yeah, he's an idiot.

Honestly, we need more "idiots" like him rather than the idiots who constantly bash him without having a clue what they are talking about. :bang2:

[Jon88]

That's a pretty big sign, I'd say $300 at least.

You're probably right. I'm just wondering who he got to make it since he did pay for it.

[junk]

Haha. All the world hates us because we have the nads to stand up for ourselves and fight terror.

How much do you think those 95% who hates us come crawling on their hands and knees when they need money, food or any other kind of aid?

Yeah, he's an idiot. He brought this country through one of it's most difficult times in history, but he's an idiot.

He stood up for America and spit in the eye of those who would do us harm.

Yeah, he's an idiot.

Honestly, we need more "idiots" like him rather than the idiots who constantly bash him without having a clue what they are talking about. :bang2:

:laugh2:

I continue to be amazed that people stand up for him. Afghanistan was a no brainer and what'd Bush do? Left it unfinished so he could trot off into Iraq under the guise of "fighting terror". Afghanistan is still a terrorist hotbed and now they're moving into Pakistan. A country that has an unstable government, nukes and a large terrorist base. Outstanding.

However, even if you make the stretch that Bush was trying to do the right thing by going into Iraq, he and his administration totally mismanaged the whole affair.

Those that bash him have a pretty good idea what they are talking about. Too bad there are those with their heads stuck in the stand that will blindly support the administration no matter how many things they botch.

[rbr651]

Brainpaint is right, we need to develop alternative sources of energy and new ways to power vehicles without increasing our dependence on oil.

By the way, the price of commercial fertilizers have tripled in the las 18-24 months, as has the price of diesel fuel - what do you think that will do to food prices? Soon, organic food may cost less to produce than conventional food, except for the cost of labor and transportation, of course. Those who own homes better start their own gardens soon.


Ummm, it's been a while since I had a science class, but isn't all food organic? If not how can it be processed by the body?

[Jon88]

Ummm, it's been a while since I had a science class, but isn't all food organic? If not how can it be processed by the body?


It's a kind of food produced with no chemicals or fertilizers.

[notherbob]

Ummm, it's been a while since I had a science class, but isn't all food organic? If not how can it be processed by the body?

You're right, I should have specified that food which is grown with old-fashioned natural organic fertilizers and soil additives approved for use by the National Organic Program is referred to as organic food, whereas food grown with modern petrochemical fertilizers and high NPK fertilizers and pesticides is referred to as conventionally grown food. It takes a lot more work to grow organically but it tastes better and has higher nutritional values. It usually costs more but once people try it, they usually prefer it over standard supermarket fare.

The really important thing is that once a grower starts to use chemical fertilizers, they feed the plants at the expense of the soil so that if you want to continue to get a higher yield, you have to continue to use increasingly larger amounts of fertilizer - it's like a drug to the soil. Organic fertilizers, on the other hand, continue to build the soil ecosystem so that you don't have to fertilize as much once you get your soil built up.

The cost of petrochemical fertilizers just tripled while the cost of natural fertilizers did not increase very much - mostly just transportation costs and increased labor cost, just the same as for conventional farmers. If the conventional farmers don't spend over three times as much for fertilizers, the size and quality of their crops will diminish.

This is at the heart of the world food crisis. Organic farmers have known this day was coming for a long time and have built up the natural fertility of their soil whereas the conventional farmers are facing a crisis of their own caused by higher fertilizer cost, higher tractor fuel, higher labor costs and higher transportation costs and the organic farmers at least have a better chance to survive because most of them make their own fertilizers or use manure from their own farm.

Food prices in the world's food markets are going to continue to go up not down; get used to it, the days of cheap, plentiful food are a thing of the past. If you have some room, better plant a garden. There will be some hard work involved but your food will taste better and be more nutritious and healthier to boot - there are no pesticide residues in or on organically grown food.

If you can't grow your own, buy from a local farmers market and you won't want to go back to supermarket food. You won't find any TV dinners or other frozen things there, only freshly harvested food with real flavor.

Hope this helps.

[Cajuncowboy]

:laugh2:

I continue to be amazed that people stand up for him. Afghanistan was a no brainer and what'd Bush do? Left it unfinished so he could trot off into Iraq under the guise of "fighting terror". Afghanistan is still a terrorist hotbed and now they're moving into Pakistan. A country that has an unstable government, nukes and a large terrorist base. Outstanding.

However, even if you make the stretch that Bush was trying to do the right thing by going into Iraq, he and his administration totally mismanaged the whole affair.

Those that bash him have a pretty good idea what they are talking about. Too bad there are those with their heads stuck in the stand that will blindly support the administration no matter how many things they botch.

Wow! We left Afghanistan? I guess you are really the expert in here then huh?

And you are one of the guys who feel like bashing Bush.

Thank you for proving my point that those that bash him have no earthly clue what they are talking about.

And we have OUR heads stuck in the sand.

Bwahahahahahahhahahah!:lmao2:

I love being right!

[SuspectCorner]

Brainpaint is right, we need to develop alternative sources of energy and new ways to power vehicles without increasing our dependence on oil.

By the way, the price of commercial fertilizers have tripled in the las 18-24 months, as has the price of diesel fuel - what do you think that will do to food prices? Soon, organic food may cost less to produce than conventional food, except for the cost of labor and transportation, of course. Those who own homes better start their own gardens soon.

Here's another incentive to shop my local "farmers market".

[canters]

If the Dems and the media ( one in the same, IMO) don't get over their hatred of Bush, and remember that he is not on the ballot this fall, ol' McCain is gonna' walk right into the WH.

The Dems have no happy medium. Its either ultra left-wing Obama, who is not electable, or the same ol' Clinton. It is sad to see both running against Bush who is not on the ballot. They keep on using the same playbook: it has not won them a majority in a presidential elections since 1976.

[paladin78749]

If the Dems and the media ( one in the same, IMO) don't get over their hatred of Bush, and remember that he is not on the ballot this fall, ol' McCain is gonna' walk right into the WH.

The Dems have no happy medium. Its either ultra left-wing Obama, who is not electable, or the same ol' Clinton. It is sad to see both running against Bush who is not on the ballot. They keep on using the same playbook: it has not won them a majority in a presidential elections since 1976.

I keep seeing the term "hate".
As a independent, who tries not to get emotionally involved, I don't see the hate.
I just see an ever increasing public attitude that Bush just isn't very competent.
I wonder what happened to the Republican party that I grew up with:
Smaller government, secure borders, non-intrusive, fiscal restraint.
IIRC didn't the dems win the popular vote in 2000?
(Maybe I just don't understand your last sentence)

[canters]

I never thought he was the greatest public speaker. He DID get a masters degree from Harvard, so he is not stupid.

I do think he is very much irrelevant at this time,,,somewhat early in his last term. It could be argued that he has been irrelevant for quite some time. It is as though the public is just waiting for him to go so that they can catch their breath.

[vlad]

I never thought he was the greatest public speaker. He DID get a masters degree from Harvard, so he is not stupid.

I do think he is very much irrelevant at this time,,,somewhat early in his last term. It could be argued that he has been irrelevant for quite some time. It is as though the public is just waiting for him to go so that they can catch their breath.

Hi Canters,
Actually, given a proper bloodline the Harvards, Yales, Browns, etc...of the world actually don't care about your intelligence. Its very similar to a fraternity (now where did those get there start?) where even if the person who is trying to get in is unqualified or just not up to par, they can get in as long as it keeps the body close to the family. Having lived up here in NYC for 5+ years I meet a lot of people from these schools, and believe me, while you will find the most brilliant minds at them, you do find a lot of these kids from feeder schools that have a dad for a senator or something. Basically it’s in their best interest to promote the rich/powerful. It’s not something the alumni ever really deny, just the way it is. Some of them are even proud of it.

The reason it sucks is that you will have so many well deserving students turned away.

Now is Bush intelligent? All evidence points to the contrary, but in my mind he could be a MENSA member and still he's screwed up things by neglecting the dollar, avoiding the market, hugging up to Musharaff, railroading the constitution, waiting until his final address to actually acknowledge environmental concerns, etc...and all the while further damaging the name of religion.

Now while I'm sure you'll come back with a thoughtful remark, someone here will read that I think Bush has done a lousy job and call me some third grade names, claim something about being intelligent, and ignore a truckload of facts as long as they can make their own package grow in their mind talking about how "tough" and "strong" we are. Well the toughest people around don't get into fights, because they know the damage they can cause. These folks would do well to learn the same. Take it easy.

[Cajuncowboy]

Hi Canters,
Actually, given a proper bloodline the Harvards, Yales, Browns, etc...of the world actually don't care about your intelligence. Its very similar to a fraternity (now where did those get there start?) where even if the person who is trying to get in is unqualified or just not up to par, they can get in as long as it keeps the body close to the family. Having lived up here in NYC for 5+ years I meet a lot of people from these schools, and believe me, while you will find the most brilliant minds at them, you do find a lot of these kids from feeder schools that have a dad for a senator or something. Basically it’s in their best interest to promote the rich/powerful. It’s not something the alumni ever really deny, just the way it is. Some of them are even proud of it.

The reason it sucks is that you will have so many well deserving students turned away.

Now is Bush intelligent? All evidence points to the contrary, but in my mind he could be a MENSA member and still he's screwed up things by neglecting the dollar, avoiding the market, hugging up to Musharaff, railroading the constitution, waiting until his final address to actually acknowledge environmental concerns, etc...and all the while further damaging the name of religion.

Now while I'm sure you'll come back with a thoughtful remark, someone here will read that I think Bush has done a lousy job and call me some third grade names, claim something about being intelligent, and ignore a truckload of facts as long as they can make their own package grow in their mind talking about how "tough" and "strong" we are. Well the toughest people around don't get into fights, because they know the damage they can cause. These folks would do well to learn the same. Take it easy.

You'd be wrong. His IQ is higher than most presidents. Been proven in thread after thread.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, I'm open to being convinced. What would have been the best course of action, given the circumstances?

[junk]

Wow! We left Afghanistan? I guess you are really the expert in here then huh?

And you are one of the guys who feel like bashing Bush.

Thank you for proving my point that those that bash him have no earthly clue what they are talking about.

And we have OUR heads stuck in the sand.

Bwahahahahahahhahahah!:lmao2:

I love being right!

Reading and comprehension of the English language obviously aren't your strong points. Which makes sense with some of the drivel you post around here.

Left unfinished simply refers to the state of the Afghanistan front when the Bush administration decided to chase the "terrorists" in Iraq. Not the literal interpretation of "left" as in "left the country" which you improperly inferred.

Here's a use of the very phrase in a Harvard piece describing Afghanistan as it relates to Pakistan.

[quote
While the global coalition to battle al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was broken and left unfinished, and after the war later turned into a self-interested war in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have again found the grounds to reorganize their forces to endanger progress toward stability and democratization.
[/quote]
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17806/blame_the_unfinished_afghan_war.html

I said they left it unfinished. It isn't finished. That's the current state. While there is still a troop presence in Afghanistan, many of those resources were redirected to Iraq. There is still a large al-Qaida and Taliban presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mission accomplished. :laugh2:

[vlad]

You'd be wrong. His IQ is higher than most presidents. Been proven in thread after thread.

Hi Cajuncowboy, again, I just said evidence, I didn't say fact. I would doubt you can verify those facts one way or the other. I criticized his policy, and because of it his intelligence. You and I happen to disagree on policy from judging from your previous posts.

I don't want to start some bashing match, I just want to understand why you think the way you think (and people that share your opinion). Now I do think issues of intelligence and integrity are of course fair game for any office, and I think they would apply here. Just to understand your opinion on things, I hope you can answer (just to see your point of view) on:

- What is your opinion in the incursion into Iraq, focusing away from Afghanistan?
- What is your opinion of the relationship the current administration has had with Pakistan, particularly Musharraf?
- Do you have any concern of the economy, particularly in regards to dollar devaluing dollar, or do you feel we are thriving?
- What was opinion of the CIA 9/11 report, and why do you feel the administration strays from it?
- What is your opinion of the restitution of a small portion of taxes ("rebate" check) and do you think it will impact the economy in a meaningful way?
- What do you feel will happen should either Obama/Clinton (they basically believe the same thing) vs McCain in the next 4 years?

These are things that happen to be most pressing or on my mind at the moment. (critical vs current)

I think this will help people understand a neo-conservative (I'm assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong) view. Hopefully we'll learn about what each is thinking and why and get some understanding.

I myself would like to be a classic conservative but really believe in some public welfare for the overall health of society. thanks

[junk]

I keep seeing the term "hate".
As a independent, who tries not to get emotionally involved, I don't see the hate.
I just see an ever increasing public attitude that Bush just isn't very competent.
I wonder what happened to the Republican party that I grew up with:
Smaller government, secure borders, non-intrusive, fiscal restraint.
IIRC didn't the dems win the popular vote in 2000?
(Maybe I just don't understand your last sentence)

That would Bush supporters grasping to justify him by blindly labeling anyone who dislikes him as a "liberal", "Democrat" or someone who hates freedom. :rolleyes:

Agreed, the current Republican party is nothing like what it used to be. I'd prefer to vote Republican. At this point, however, it's unlikely I even vote.

[junk]

Well, I'm open to being convinced. What would have been the best course of action, given the circumstances?

Hindsight is always 20/20, I guess. Going into Iraq has obviously proven to be a mistake for a variety of reasons.

However, finishing the job in Afghanistan should have been the first place to start. Saddam really wasn't a threat to us and was easily contained. At least long enough to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Not having much of an occupation plan was obviously a mistake. I thought the sales pitch was that Iraqi oil was going to finance the reconstruction. It really aggravates me that my tax dollars are being used to finance reconstruction.

[canters]

Bush has been a disappointment to a bunch of people for a variety of reasons....he is far from thr worst prez in our history, however.

Failure to address the southern border of the US, security issues.
Failure to reverse campaign finance law (thanks McCain!)
Failure to reverse NAFTA, (thanks Clinton!)
Failure to have a better strategy for post war Irag. I support the invasion but not the aftermath. I want to win and we have not played to win.
Failure to curb domestic spending.

All of the above Bush could be fairly rated poorly.

Now, some good stuff, IMO.

The enviroment/global warming is a big load of crap. Kudos to Bush for ignoring it. In 10 yrs. we will be burried by stories of global cooling.

The Patriot Act

Stressing faith in his thinking/policy.

War on Terror.

Some things I cannot think of right now.

[Cajuncowboy]

Reading and comprehension of the English language obviously aren't your strong points. Which makes sense with some of the drivel you post around here.

Left unfinished simply refers to the state of the Afghanistan front when the Bush administration decided to chase the "terrorists" in Iraq. Not the literal interpretation of "left" as in "left the country" which you improperly inferred.

Here's a use of the very phrase in a Harvard piece describing Afghanistan as it relates to Pakistan.

While the global coalition to battle al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was broken and left unfinished,[/B] and after the war later turned into a self-interested war in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have again found the grounds to reorganize their forces to endanger progress toward stability and democratization.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17806/blame_the_unfinished_afghan_war.html

I said they left it unfinished. It isn't finished. That's the current state. While there is still a troop presence in Afghanistan, many of those resources were redirected to Iraq. There is still a large al-Qaida and Taliban presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mission accomplished. :laugh2:


Oh my, you are a hoot. You said left unfinished which would mean by all reasonable standards that we left and it is unfinished. But in your screwed up world left means we are still there so by that stupid reasoning unfinished must mean finished.

So apparently we left the job finished.

Oh by the way, reading and comprehension is obviously not your strong suit either. This peace is referring to the coalition being broken. WE are still there genius.

And once again a Bush basher is proven to not have a clue on earth wth he is talking about.

You people are priceless.

:lmao2:

You are a product of public schools aren't you???

[Cajuncowboy]

]

Hi Cajuncowboy, again, I just said evidence, I didn't say fact. I would doubt you can verify those facts one way or the other. I criticized his policy, and because of it his intelligence. You and I happen to disagree on policy from judging from your previous posts.

I don't want to start some bashing match, I just want to understand why you think the way you think (and people that share your opinion). Now I do think issues of intelligence and integrity are of course fair game for any office, and I think they would apply here. Just to understand your opinion on things, I hope you can answer (just to see your point of view) on:

- What is your opinion in the incursion into Iraq, focusing away from Afghanistan?
- What is your opinion of the relationship the current administration has had with Pakistan, particularly Musharraf?
- Do you have any concern of the economy, particularly in regards to dollar devaluing dollar, or do you feel we are thriving?
- What was opinion of the CIA 9/11 report, and why do you feel the administration strays from it?
- What is your opinion of the restitution of a small portion of taxes ("rebate" check) and do you think it will impact the economy in a meaningful way?
- What do you feel will happen should either Obama/Clinton (they basically believe the same thing) vs McCain in the next 4 years?

These are things that happen to be most pressing or on my mind at the moment. (critical vs current)

I think this will help people understand a neo-conservative (I'm assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong) view. Hopefully we'll learn about what each is thinking and why and get some understanding.

I myself would like to be a classic conservative but really believe in some public welfare for the overall health of society. thanks
[/SIZE]

First of all I am over 40 so you need to make your fonts bigger. :(

Secondly, Bush's SAT score was 1206. Here is a copy of the conversion chart that relates SATs to IQ measurements.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx

It places his IQ in the 129-130 range.

With that said here is my views on the things you asked:

- What is your opinion in the incursion into Iraq, focusing away from Afghanistan?

In every war in US history there was always more than one front. With all of the intel we had (faulty as it may have been) the decision to go to Iraq was justified. We had successfully deposed the Taliban from power and we had a coalition in place to help mange the war.
Saddam was a known terrorist and sponsor of terror that killed Americans. He was a murderous thug and was in deep violations of many human rights issues.

In addition to that, people don't understand that this is NOT a new war but a continuation of the old Gulf war due to there never being a surrender, only a cease fire agreement that resulted in the UN resolutions in which he was in direct violation.

- What is your opinion of the relationship the current administration has had with Pakistan, particularly Musharraf?

I don't trust Mushariff but at the same time he is the only game in town and we have to play ball with him. The problem is that sometimes, when the only kid on the block that has a ball and you want to play ball, you have to play with him or you don't play.

As for this admins relationship with him, you have to have some alliances in the area if you want to get anything accomplished.


- Do you have any concern of the economy, particularly in regards to dollar devaluing dollar, or do you feel we are thriving?

Personally I am thriving but that's because I am a republican. :D
Actually, I am not concerned long term with the economy because it is a cyclical thing. It goes on 8 to 10 year cycles. Bush came in at a time when the economy was starting to take a down turn. I thought Clinton got too much blame for it right after he left and obviously he too much credit when the budget was balanced by a republican congress.

The economy is due to start a comeback around November and we will be in a full scale boom economy around March. It's just the way it is. The new pres, who ever it will be will get way too much credit for it turning around and way too much blame when it tanks again in about 8 years.

As far as the dollar losing ground, it only concerns me to the point that we have an imbalance in our economic and trade theories.

- What was opinion of the CIA 9/11 report, and why do you feel the administration strays from it?

Actually, I would need to know which parts you are concerned with because that report says a lot that is not popularly discussed in the MSM.


- What is your opinion of the restitution of a small portion of taxes ("rebate" check) and do you think it will impact the economy in a meaningful way?

There is a difference between a rebate and a refund. What we are getting, as you properly described it is a rebate. (of course I love the restitution part. :thumbup: ) Personally, as long as the ones getting it are the ones that paid taxes I am ok with it. Not great with it, just ok with it.

It will help stimulate the economy on the short term but it will not have any long lasting effects unless there are some changes in the tax structure in this country. The main issue right now is the gasoline tax and now the dems want to add to THAT! So on one hand they say, Here is a check and on the other hand they say, give us some of it back. That's democrat thinking at it's finest.

- What do you feel will happen should either Obama/Clinton (they basically believe the same thing) vs McCain in the next 4 years?

I think you mean if one of them BEAT McCain. If that's wrong correct me.
I really doubt Obama OR Hillary can beat McCain. Both have HUGE unfavorable ratings and Hillary's is just off the charts. If either one would win, we would see some of the highest taxes in over 100 years because they would consider that they have a blank check to do what they want and taxing the American people to death is their way.

I myself would like to be a classic conservative but really believe in some public welfare for the overall health of society.

I believe in SOME public welfare as well. I feel that a woman should have access to it for a period of two years while an able body man should have access to it for one year. I think that it should not be gratis however. To collect your check you should be mandated to work in a business to learn a trade and then be prepared to enter the workforce when that period is over.

I think there should be some tax advantages for employers who participate in a program that trains and then hires these people.

Vald, I enjoy this kind of discourse and I look forward to your replies.

[junk]

Oh my, you are a hoot. You said left unfinished which would mean by all reasonable standards that we left and it is unfinished. But in your screwed up world left means we are still there so by that stupid reasoning unfinished must mean finished.

So apparently we left the job finished.

:laugh2: What is this? That doesn't even make sense. I see you're trying to avoid addressing the real issue by getting bogged by a phrase you don't understand.

I gave you an exact example of the common usage of the phrase with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It refers to the how the state of the situation was left....unfinished. Not troops physically leaving the country, but the state of affairs when Iraq was brought into the equation. I'm sorry you're struggling with that. I'll try to make is easier to understand.

The overall goals in Afghanistan were not complete when the administration decided to invade Iraq. There were and still are threats that have been allowed to move into a country with nuclear weapons and an unstable government that seems reluctant to deal with them. This could have been avoided had the administration really been concerned with fighting the war on terror.


Oh by the way, reading and comprehension is obviously not your strong suit either. This peace is referring to the coalition being broken. WE are still there genius.

I love the sarcastic genius comments from people that can't spell or figure out how to post on a message board (that last post looked great). I think you're looking to use the word "piece" there.


And once again a Bush basher is proven to not have a clue on earth wth he is talking about.

Is Afghanistan stable? Has al-Qaida or the Taliban been eliminated? Are they regrouping in Pakistan? Were resources diverted from Afghanistan for Iraq? Enough said.


You are a product of public schools aren't you???
Yep. I know how to spell "piece". I can operate simple message board software. I understand basic English phrases. Must have been a decent education.

[Cajuncowboy]

:laugh2: What is this? That doesn't even make sense. I see you're trying to avoid addressing the real issue by getting bogged by a phrase you don't understand.

I gave you an exact example of the common usage of the phrase with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It refers to the how the state of the situation was left....unfinished. Not troops physically leaving the country, but the state of affairs when Iraq was brought into the equation. I'm sorry you're struggling with that. I'll try to make is easier to understand.

The overall goals in Afghanistan were not complete when the administration decided to invade Iraq. There were and still are threats that have been allowed to move into a country with nuclear weapons and an unstable government that seems reluctant to deal with them. This could have been avoided had the administration really been concerned with fighting the war on terror.


I love the sarcastic genius comments from people that can't spell or figure out how to post on a message board (that last post looked great). I think you're looking to use the word "piece" there.


Is Afghanistan stable? Has al-Qaida or the Taliban been eliminated? Are they regrouping in Pakistan? Were resources diverted from Afghanistan for Iraq? Enough said.


Yep. I know how to spell "piece". I can operate simple message board software. I understand basic English phrases. Must have been a decent education.

I got a "PEICE" of advice for you, let's see if you have the brains to take it.

You probably ought to know who you are talking to before you start running your yap regarding intelligence. Because yours is obviously on the lower end of the scale.

You got exposed and you are now trying to drum up some stupid explanation as to why you said we "LEFT" Afghanistan.

You really are a "PIECE" of work!

And again, proof that people like you don't have a clue.

But keep posting and proving me correct.

You people make this sooooo easy!

[DallasFanSince86]

First of all I am over 40 so you need to make your fonts bigger. :(

Secondly, Bush's SAT score was 1206. Here is a copy of the conversion chart that relates SATs to IQ measurements.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx

It places his IQ in the 129-130 range.

With that said here is my views on the things you asked:

- What is your opinion in the incursion into Iraq, focusing away from Afghanistan?

In every war in US history there was always more than one front. With all of the intel we had (faulty as it may have been) the decision to go to Iraq was justified. We had successfully deposed the Taliban from power and we had a coalition in place to help mange the war.
Saddam was a known terrorist and sponsor of terror that killed Americans. He was a murderous thug and was in deep violations of many human rights issues.

In addition to that, people don't understand that this is NOT a new war but a continuation of the old Gulf war due to there never being a surrender, only a cease fire agreement that resulted in the UN resolutions in which he was in direct violation.

- What is your opinion of the relationship the current administration has had with Pakistan, particularly Musharraf?

I don't trust Mushariff but at the same time he is the only game in town and we have to play ball with him. The problem is that sometimes, when the only kid on the block that has a ball and you want to play ball, you have to play with him or you don't play.

As for this admins relationship with him, you have to have some alliances in the area if you want to get anything accomplished.


- Do you have any concern of the economy, particularly in regards to dollar devaluing dollar, or do you feel we are thriving?

Personally I am thriving but that's because I am a republican. :D
Actually, I am not concerned long term with the economy because it is a cyclical thing. It goes on 8 to 10 year cycles. Bush came in at a time when the economy was starting to take a down turn. I thought Clinton got too much blame for it right after he left and obviously he too much credit when the budget was balanced by a republican congress.

The economy is due to start a comeback around November and we will be in a full scale boom economy around March. It's just the way it is. The new pres, who ever it will be will get way too much credit for it turning around and way too much blame when it tanks again in about 8 years.

As far as the dollar losing ground, it only concerns me to the point that we have an imbalance in our economic and trade theories.

- What was opinion of the CIA 9/11 report, and why do you feel the administration strays from it?

Actually, I would need to know which parts you are concerned with because that report says a lot that is not popularly discussed in the MSM.


- What is your opinion of the restitution of a small portion of taxes ("rebate" check) and do you think it will impact the economy in a meaningful way?

There is a difference between a rebate and a refund. What we are getting, as you properly described it is a rebate. (of course I love the restitution part. :thumbup: ) Personally, as long as the ones getting it are the ones that paid taxes I am ok with it. Not great with it, just ok with it.

It will help stimulate the economy on the short term but it will not have any long lasting effects unless there are some changes in the tax structure in this country. The main issue right now is the gasoline tax and now the dems want to add to THAT! So on one hand they say, Here is a check and on the other hand they say, give us some of it back. That's democrat thinking at it's finest.

- What do you feel will happen should either Obama/Clinton (they basically believe the same thing) vs McCain in the next 4 years?

I think you mean if one of them BEAT McCain. If that's wrong correct me.
I really doubt Obama OR Hillary can beat McCain. Both have HUGE unfavorable ratings and Hillary's is just off the charts. If either one would win, we would see some of the highest taxes in over 100 years because they would consider that they have a blank check to do what they want and taxing the American people to death is their way.

I myself would like to be a classic conservative but really believe in some public welfare for the overall health of society.

I believe in SOME public welfare as well. I feel that a woman should have access to it for a period of two years while an able body man should have access to it for one year. I think that it should not be gratis however. To collect your check you should be mandated to work in a business to learn a trade and then be prepared to enter the workforce when that period is over.

I think there should be some tax advantages for employers who participate in a program that trains and then hires these people.

Vald, I enjoy this kind of discourse and I look forward to your replies.

:clap2:

[vlad]

CrazyCowboy - Great response, I am swamped at work and have to have dinner with my gf's roommate tonight (fun...), hopefully I can get to this tomorrow.

I'm glad to see you have reasoning for your opinions and they don't seem to be formed out of fear. For example, these latest Hilary tactics are getting on my nerves (3 am phone call, "obliterate", gas tax holiday). They are totally right out of the things Bush was doing, fear mongering and easy wins over a population that doesn't have time/motivation/incentive to be informed.

Uhh...Go Cowboys (that is why were are here after all...ha)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Hindsight is always 20/20, I guess. Going into Iraq has obviously proven to be a mistake for a variety of reasons.

However, finishing the job in Afghanistan should have been the first place to start. Saddam really wasn't a threat to us and was easily contained. At least long enough to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Not having much of an occupation plan was obviously a mistake. I thought the sales pitch was that Iraqi oil was going to finance the reconstruction. It really aggravates me that my tax dollars are being used to finance reconstruction.


I think the premise by which most view this war is wrong. IMHO, this is not a matter of winning and leaving, per say. A study of this regions history is a strong indicator that a short or even moderatly long War is unlikely. Why then would we engage in such a War? The answer, IMO, lies in the objectives this administration is trying to accomplish.

First of all, I would like to state that this War, and even the events of 9/11, preceeded this administration by a goodly length of time. Clinton and his administration were aware of these threats long before the events of 9/11 occured. I think it is unfair to pile this all on Bush simply because he took office when he did. I don't believe that Bush ever had any real opportunity to work on the objectives he ran on and was ultimatly elected for. I do believe that had Bush not been faced with War so early into his Presidency, he could have been a pretty popular President. Bush has been a good business man most of his private life. We will never know what could have been but I do believe that it is interesting to consider the possabilities.

I honestly believe that Bush entered into this War with the specific objective of buying time to ensure that our Country would not be subjected to further terrorist attacks. I believe that based on the intel available to Bush and his adminstration, the fear that future attacks could be of a chemical, biological or even nuclear threat scenario were real and were of paramount importance. In short, I believe the objective was to keep pressure on these terrorist organizations till this Country could ready itself to protect it's own boarders. There is no real stratigey that has proven effective against this region of the world, save, complete and total anialation of the enemy and that is not something that our society is ever going to allow. Bush will get a bad rap for his actions in this War but I believe that the future will be much kinder to him. He was in a no win situation IMO. Unfortunate but sometimes thats just how it goes. Some will say that he could have listened to the UN and the rest of the world. I would say that it is easy to take this position when we are several years removed from the original attacks and have yet to see another attack on American soil. Bush and his administration were faced with the very real possability of disastrous conciquences if this approach failed. If you look at France, Germany, Russia, really all of the countries who were stronly apposed to our involvment in this War, all have been targeted recently by terrorists attacks or plans for attacks. Honestly, I believe that it wouldn't matter if we had complied with those who didn't want us to go to War or if we had not. The end result would have been the same. Only a matter of how quickly we were at War.

I think it's interesting that Germany and France are now in favor of stiffer sanctions against Iran for basically the same kinds of issues that we were against previously. At that time, they did not support those initiatives, in part, because they themselves were supplying some of the materials being used to support terrorist activities. The difference now being that there interests are being threatened and it is Russia and China that are supplying materials for terrorist activities.

I think this whole thing is unfortunate. I wished that I was not in a position to have to choose what is right and what is wrong about this War. I have a 19 year old Son, a 15 year old Daughter and two more right behind them. I have very good friends, on this very board who have children who could be or have been at risk. I suspect you do also. Having said all of this, it is hard for me to look at this situation and see a different conclusion from the one which has played out now.

Perhaps I am naive but to me, there was only one real conclusion to the incidents of 9/11. Those who say we should have gone in and taken care of business and then left are, to me, not paying attention to the history of the region. That's not how it works IMO.

These are the things I believe. I wished things were different but they are not. I support President Bush because I do not believe that there was any real option other then what has already happened. I know most do not agree with me. That's OK. I will have to live with my beliefs. However, I know that it would have been much harder for me to live with those beliefs if I had believed that we did not have to go to War and the next terrorist attack would have been of the chemical, biological or nuclear variety on American soil. As awful as it his to have our people put at risk, I think it would have been worse to have citizens dying here at home because of one of those devices outlined above.

That's how I see this.

[ConcordCowboy]

Well, I'm open to being convinced. What would have been the best course of action, given the circumstances?

I think the premise by which most view this war is wrong. IMHO, this is not a matter of winning and leaving, per say. A study of this regions history is a strong indicator that a short or even moderatly long War is unlikely. Why then would we engage in such a War? The answer, IMO, lies in the objectives this administration is trying to accomplish.

First of all, I would like to state that this War, and even the events of 9/11, preceeded this administration by a goodly length of time. Clinton and his administration were aware of these threats long before the events of 9/11 occured. I think it is unfair to pile this all on Bush simply because he took office when he did. I don't believe that Bush ever had any real opportunity to work on the objectives he ran on and was ultimatly elected for. I do believe that had Bush not been faced with War so early into his Presidency, he could have been a pretty popular President. Bush has been a good business man most of his private life. We will never know what could have been but I do believe that it is interesting to consider the possabilities.

I honestly believe that Bush entered into this War with the specific objective of buying time to ensure that our Country would not be subjected to further terrorist attacks. I believe that based on the intel available to Bush and his adminstration, the fear that future attacks could be of a chemical, biological or even nuclear threat scenario were real and were of paramount importance. In short, I believe the objective was to keep pressure on these terrorist organizations till this Country could ready itself to protect it's own boarders. There is no real stratigey that has proven effective against this region of the world, save, complete and total anialation of the enemy and that is not something that our society is ever going to allow. Bush will get a bad rap for his actions in this War but I believe that the future will be much kinder to him. He was in a no win situation IMO. Unfortunate but sometimes thats just how it goes. Some will say that he could have listened to the UN and the rest of the world. I would say that it is easy to take this position when we are several years removed from the original attacks and have yet to see another attack on American soil. Bush and his administration were faced with the very real possability of disastous conciquences if this approach failed. If you look at France, Germany, Russia, really all of the countries who were stronly apposed to our involvment in this War, have been targeted recently by terrorists attacks or plans for attacks. Honestly, I believe that it wouldn't matter if we had complied with those who didn't want us to go to War or if we had not. The end result would have been the same. Only a matter of how quickly we were at War.

I think it's interesting that Germany and France are now in favor of stiffer sanctions against Iran for basically the same kinds of issues that we were against previously. At that time, they did not support those initiatives, in part, because they themselves were supplying some of the materials being used to support terrorist activities. The difference now being that there interests are being threatened and it is Russia and China that are supplying materials for terrorist activities.

I think this whole thing is unfortunate. I wished that I was not in a position to have to choose what is right and what is wrong about this War. I have a 19 year old Son, a 15 year old Daughter and two more right behind them. I have very good friends, on this very board who have children who could be or have been at risk. I suspect you do also. Having said all of this, it is hard for me to look at this situation and see a different conclusion from the one which has played out now.

Perhaps I am naive but to me, there was only one real conclusion to the incidents of 9/11. Those who say we should have gone in and taken care of business and then left are, to me, not paying attention to the history of the region. That's not how it works IMO.

These are the things I believe. I wished things were different but they are not. I support President Bush because I do not believe that there was any real option other then what has already happened. I know most do not agree with me. That's OK. I will have to live with my beliefs. However, I know that it would have been much harder for me to live with those beliefs if I had believed that we did not have to go to War and the next terrorist attack would have been of the chemical, biological or nuclear variety on American soil. As awful as it his to have our people put at risk, I think it woudl have been worse to have citizens dying here at home because of one of those devices outlined above.

That's how I see this.

Why play the game of you're open to being convinced when obviously you never were and had your mind made up?

Just come out and say what you said in your second post and be done with it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why play the game of you're open to being convinced when obviously you never were and had your mind made up?

Just come out and say what you said in your second post and be done with it.


I said I was open to being convinced. I didn't say I was open to being talked into going along with the popular opinion. There is a difference CC. I think you know me well enough to know that I am not close minded to any views, per say. I listen, like everybody. To just come out and say what I said without understanding what is driving another persons point of view is how you get started in a whole bunch of pointless arguement. I would rather gain a better understand and hopefully pass on a better understanding of what I think, as opposed to just spiraling down a never ending argument on the subject.

After all, it's not like this is Michigan vs Ohio St.

;)

[ConcordCowboy]

I said I was open to being convinced. I didn't say I was open to being talked into going along with the popular opinion. There is a difference CC. I think you know me well enough to know that I am not close minded to any views, per say. I listen, like everybody. To just come out and say what I said without understanding what is driving another persons point of view is how you get started in a whole bunch of pointless arguement. I would rather gain a better understand and hopefully pass on a better understanding of what I think, as opposed to just spiraling down a never ending argument on the subject.

After all, it's not like this is Michigan vs Ohio St.

;)

Oh that one is pointless.

:p:

[junk]

I got a "PEICE" of advice for you, let's see if you have the brains to take it.

What's a "PEICE" of advice?


You probably ought to know who you are talking to before you start running your yap regarding intelligence. Because yours is obviously on the lower end of the scale.

At least I have a basic grasp of spelling and grammar. I'm not sure who I'm talking to, but it must not have been someone who had much luck in their English coursework.


You got exposed and you are now trying to drum up some stupid explanation as to why you said we "LEFT" Afghanistan.

I'm sorry you don't understand. You don't understand the difference between "peace" and "piece", so I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain it. My statement had nothing to do with the troops leaving the country.

It referred to the state of affairs when the country invaded Afghanistan. How do you explain the article on the exact same subject using the exact same phrase that I used?


You really are a "PIECE" of work!

Oh look, you spelled it right! Congratulations! Gold star.


And again, proof that people like you don't have a clue.

Whatever gets you through the day. I think your last two posts have pretty clearly illustrated that you don't have a real strong grasp on English and grammar.

[junk]

I think the premise by which most view this war is wrong. IMHO, this is not a matter of winning and leaving, per say. A study of this regions history is a strong indicator that a short or even moderatly long War is unlikely. Why then would we engage in such a War? The answer, IMO, lies in the objectives this administration is trying to accomplish.

Agreed. There will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. It wasn't about winning and getting out, but more about winning, establishing a presence in the region and securing oil reserves.


First of all, I would like to state that this War, and even the events of 9/11, preceeded this administration by a goodly length of time. Clinton and his administration were aware of these threats long before the events of 9/11 occured. I think it is unfair to pile this all on Bush simply because he took office when he did. I don't believe that Bush ever had any real opportunity to work on the objectives he ran on and was ultimatly elected for. I do believe that had Bush not been faced with War so early into his Presidency, he could have been a pretty popular President. Bush has been a good business man most of his private life. We will never know what could have been but I do believe that it is interesting to consider the possabilities.

It preceded Clinton as well. I'll never understand the desire by Bush supporters to continually bash Clinton. Clinton was weak militarily, but he was actively tracking bin Laden and did take action against him.

Good or bad, Iraq will be Bush's legacy. Personally, I believe we would have ended up in Iraq had 9/11 happened or not.


I honestly believe that Bush entered into this War with the specific objective of buying time to ensure that our Country would not be subjected to further terrorist attacks. I believe that based on the intel available to Bush and his adminstration, the fear that future attacks could be of a chemical, biological or even nuclear threat scenario were real and were of paramount importance.

How does invading Iraq accomplish that? We haven't found any WMD in Iraq. There are other countries with known WMD. Why Iraq?


In short, I believe the objective was to keep pressure on these terrorist organizations till this Country could ready itself to protect it's own boarders.

How does sending 150,000 troops to Iraq protect our borders? All it would take is a rogue nuke from some place like Pakistan or North Korea. Being in Iraq would not prevent something like that. By concentrating on Iraq instead of Afghanistan, it allows al-Qaida to set up in Pakistan. They've already achieved some success in destabilizing that government.


There is no real stratigey that has proven effective against this region of the world, save, complete and total anialation of the enemy and that is not something that our society is ever going to allow. Bush will get a bad rap for his actions in this War but I believe that the future will be much kinder to him. He was in a no win situation IMO. Unfortunate but sometimes thats just how it goes. Some will say that he could have listened to the UN and the rest of the world. I would say that it is easy to take this position when we are several years removed from the original attacks and have yet to see another attack on American soil. Bush and his administration were faced with the very real possability of disastrous conciquences if this approach failed.

I don't think he'd be viewed so unfavorably had Iraq not entered the equation.


Perhaps I am naive but to me, there was only one real conclusion to the incidents of 9/11. Those who say we should have gone in and taken care of business and then left are, to me, not paying attention to the history of the region. That's not how it works IMO.

People are obsessed with leaving. No one is saying that. Had they kept resources devoted to finishing off al-Qaida in Afghanistan, I think we'd be safer. Pakistan worries me more than any other country right now. Much more so than Iran.

How again, does Iraq tie to 9/11? I think those that are making that leap are poorly informed.


These are the things I believe. I wished things were different but they are not. I support President Bush because I do not believe that there was any real option other then what has already happened. I know most do not agree with me. That's OK. I will have to live with my beliefs. However, I know that it would have been much harder for me to live with those beliefs if I had believed that we did not have to go to War and the next terrorist attack would have been of the chemical, biological or nuclear variety on American soil. As awful as it his to have our people put at risk, I think it would have been worse to have citizens dying here at home because of one of those devices outlined above.

That's how I see this.

There were other options. The group that attacked our country was put on the back burner for Iraq. al-Qaida should have been completely neutralized before fulfilling the administration's personal goals.

[Cajuncowboy]

What's a "PEICE" of advice?


At least I have a basic grasp of spelling and grammar. I'm not sure who I'm talking to, but it must not have been someone who had much luck in their English coursework.


I'm sorry you don't understand. You don't understand the difference between "peace" and "piece", so I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain it. My statement had nothing to do with the troops leaving the country.

It referred to the state of affairs when the country invaded Afghanistan. How do you explain the article on the exact same subject using the exact same phrase that I used?


Oh look, you spelled it right! Congratulations! Gold star.


Whatever gets you through the day. I think your last two posts have pretty clearly illustrated that you don't have a real strong grasp on English and grammar.

I see sarcasm isn't one of your strong suits. Why do you think I capped it and quoted it?????

Whatever. You don't know the difference between leaving and staying so, whatever.

Have fun being ignorant.

[Cajuncowboy]

CrazyCowboy - Great response, I am swamped at work and have to have dinner with my gf's roommate tonight (fun...), hopefully I can get to this tomorrow.

I'm glad to see you have reasoning for your opinions and they don't seem to be formed out of fear. For example, these latest Hilary tactics are getting on my nerves (3 am phone call, "obliterate", gas tax holiday). They are totally right out of the things Bush was doing, fear mongering and easy wins over a population that doesn't have time/motivation/incentive to be informed.

Uhh...Go Cowboys (that is why were are here after all...ha)

I've ben called crazy but you do have me confused with the maked one. Plus I don't think all of his posts combined would equal that one post as far as words. :D

And yes, the end result is we are here for the same reason!

:starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin

[SuspectCorner]

I think the premise by which most view this war is wrong. IMHO, this is not a matter of winning and leaving, per say. A study of this regions history is a strong indicator that a short or even moderatly long War is unlikely. Why then would we engage in such a War? The answer, IMO, lies in the objectives this administration is trying to accomplish.

First of all, I would like to state that this War, and even the events of 9/11, preceeded this administration by a goodly length of time. Clinton and his administration were aware of these threats long before the events of 9/11 occured. I think it is unfair to pile this all on Bush simply because he took office when he did. I don't believe that Bush ever had any real opportunity to work on the objectives he ran on and was ultimatly elected for. I do believe that had Bush not been faced with War so early into his Presidency, he could have been a pretty popular President. Bush has been a good business man most of his private life. We will never know what could have been but I do believe that it is interesting to consider the possabilities.

I honestly believe that Bush entered into this War with the specific objective of buying time to ensure that our Country would not be subjected to further terrorist attacks. I believe that based on the intel available to Bush and his adminstration, the fear that future attacks could be of a chemical, biological or even nuclear threat scenario were real and were of paramount importance. In short, I believe the objective was to keep pressure on these terrorist organizations till this Country could ready itself to protect it's own boarders. There is no real stratigey that has proven effective against this region of the world, save, complete and total anialation of the enemy and that is not something that our society is ever going to allow. Bush will get a bad rap for his actions in this War but I believe that the future will be much kinder to him. He was in a no win situation IMO. Unfortunate but sometimes thats just how it goes. Some will say that he could have listened to the UN and the rest of the world. I would say that it is easy to take this position when we are several years removed from the original attacks and have yet to see another attack on American soil. Bush and his administration were faced with the very real possability of disastrous conciquences if this approach failed. If you look at France, Germany, Russia, really all of the countries who were stronly apposed to our involvment in this War, all have been targeted recently by terrorists attacks or plans for attacks. Honestly, I believe that it wouldn't matter if we had complied with those who didn't want us to go to War or if we had not. The end result would have been the same. Only a matter of how quickly we were at War.

I think it's interesting that Germany and France are now in favor of stiffer sanctions against Iran for basically the same kinds of issues that we were against previously. At that time, they did not support those initiatives, in part, because they themselves were supplying some of the materials being used to support terrorist activities. The difference now being that there interests are being threatened and it is Russia and China that are supplying materials for terrorist activities.

I think this whole thing is unfortunate. I wished that I was not in a position to have to choose what is right and what is wrong about this War. I have a 19 year old Son, a 15 year old Daughter and two more right behind them. I have very good friends, on this very board who have children who could be or have been at risk. I suspect you do also. Having said all of this, it is hard for me to look at this situation and see a different conclusion from the one which has played out now.

Perhaps I am naive but to me, there was only one real conclusion to the incidents of 9/11. Those who say we should have gone in and taken care of business and then left are, to me, not paying attention to the history of the region. That's not how it works IMO.

These are the things I believe. I wished things were different but they are not. I support President Bush because I do not believe that there was any real option other then what has already happened. I know most do not agree with me. That's OK. I will have to live with my beliefs. However, I know that it would have been much harder for me to live with those beliefs if I had believed that we did not have to go to War and the next terrorist attack would have been of the chemical, biological or nuclear variety on American soil. As awful as it his to have our people put at risk, I think it would have been worse to have citizens dying here at home because of one of those devices outlined above.

That's how I see this.

What's this - "Massage Your Keyboard Day". I'll sum up the war effort in Iraq in three letters. O-I-L...

By the way, the use of DU weaponry in the Iraq War by US and British forces is estimated at between 1000 to 2000 tons. Here's your weapons of "mass" destruction (the evidence for which is NOT elusive) - and the lingering affects of those will likely haunt the Iraqi civilian population for untold years to come. And that's not even taking into account the affect it will continue to have on OUR OWN TROOPS:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5146778547681767408&

[ABQCOWBOY]

What's this - "Massage Your Keyboard Day". I'll sum up the war effort in Iraq in three letters. O-I-L...

By the way, the use of DU weaponry in the Iraq War by US and British forces is estimated at between 1000 to 2000 tons. Here's your weapons of "mass" destruction (the evidence for which is NOT elusive) - and the lingering affects of those will likely haunt the Iraqi civilian population for untold years to come. And that's not even taking into account the affect it will continue to have on OUR OWN TROOPS:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5146778547681767408&

What's your point? It is clearly not to discuss the topic at had. If you wish to discuss another topic, I am OK with this but lets not cross the two.

Post your topic and I'm happy to talk about it. Include your information on Depleated Uranium Weapons and we can talk about it. It's an interesting topic and one which I do not believe has been discussed on this board as yet.

[DaBoys4Life]

I don't think we can overthrow another countries government and leave it in total chaos afterwards. I believe we are not finished in Iraq until the situation becomes settled. I believe another 5-10 years are needed but we will see only time will tell.

[ABQCOWBOY]

[QUOTE]It preceded Clinton as well. I'll never understand the desire by Bush supporters to continually bash Clinton. Clinton was weak militarily, but he was actively tracking bin Laden and did take action against him.

I believe the reason for this is because Clinton's administration did very little to address the information they had on the subject. The plans for 9/11 were developed long before Bush ever took office yet detrators of Bush blame him for it on a regular basis. Is this not the other side of the coin? It's a two way street and to be honest, I think it's more unfair to blame the Bush administration for 9/11 then it is to say that Clinton's administration was not to blame. I do not believe that Clinton's administration did much. Bin Laden was tracked because that is SOP by our intelligence community on any threat to national security. It is not something that Clinton did as much as it is something that has been done since forever. If we are to believe that this threat was known even before Clinton took office, then that would also indicate that the Clinton administration had 8 years to address the situation. By action taken, I assume you mean the failed missiles attacks on Bin Ladin in 98? I suppose this can be viewed as such but in truth, there were plenty of other opportunities to kill Bin Laden. In the end, it didn't happen so what's the point? 9/11 had been coming for a long time. It was inevitable.

Good or bad, Iraq will be Bush's legacy. Personally, I believe we would have ended up in Iraq had 9/11 happened or not.

I agree. I agree with this because Bin Laden was not going to go away. Nor were hundreds of other factions that want us just as dead, in this region. There is something to be said for those who have actually spent time in that area of the world. There views on things do not receive nearly the air time that a great many of those who seek to politic for who's to blame or who is right do. I say this specific to both sides of the parties. I am not blind to the fact that there is an awful lot of spin going on from both Democrates and Republicans. Nobody wants to get saddled with the War but the truth is that it was coming for a very long time. If you look at this stricktly from a stategic point of view, I believe that the objectives of this War and the real reasons we are there make a great deal of sense. The problem is that politics and the media need stories so they create them. If you consider the question of terrorisam and the Middle East, it is very quickly determined that nothing short of long term occupation will work. Quick military strikes do not work. You must occupy and control these regions in order to effectively combat terrorisam. This is not an attractive proposition but it is true. More to the point, if you study the region, Iraq is a very logical choice for invasion. The former government was not friendly. They needed to be removed. We know a great deal about the country and it's capabilities. It had a great deal of historic enemies in the region, which ment that it would probably not receive as strong of a commitment of support from other surrounding nations as would other countries in the region. It is very close to vital areas of importance to our nation (Saudi Arabia) and as such, could be used to closely protect interests without actually disrupting an Ally such as Saudi Arabia and Isreal through invasion. It has good port accessability, it allows for good access to strike at other problem areas within the region and it also provides excellent access for staging point to conduct opperations into the Far East, should that become necessary. With the fall of the USSR, there is no real strong presence in the area that could serve to stabelize things. With American forces perminantly stationed in this region, it allows for such a pressence. It also allows for rediculous access to Iran, who has been a pain in the side of the US since the Shaw left. I mean, if you look at this from those respects, it makes a lot of sense why we invaded Iraq.

How does invading Iraq accomplish that? We haven't found any WMD in Iraq. There are other countries with known WMD. Why Iraq?

Read my earlier. To me, this is why we invaded Iraq. It may not be a popular opinion but I do believe this was the reasoning.


How does sending 150,000 troops to Iraq protect our borders? All it would take is a rogue nuke from some place like Pakistan or North Korea. Being in Iraq would not prevent something like that. By concentrating on Iraq instead of Afghanistan, it allows al-Qaida to set up in Pakistan. They've already achieved some success in destabilizing that government.

It protects boarders by allowing for time to get ourselves ready to protect and deal with these kinds of threats. We have enjoyed a life of open boarders since the time this country was born. Those days are now gone. This country was ill prepared to create the kinds of security measures it will take to even have the slightest impact on deturance. Yeah, sure Al-Qaida could stage from other countries but before you can do that, you have to have some sort of stability and capitol . The longer you wage war against them, the longer it takes to gather those kinds of resources. Al-Qaida is not limitless. They too are feeling pressure. The longer they are unable to effectively show resistance, the greater the possability that they are replaced by other factions, some of which may not be as opposed to American influences as Al-Qaida is. All I'm really saying here is that this is a play for time with a possible longer sphere of influence then any may realize. I don't think we intend to leave the Middle East. In fact, we are setting up 4 different bases within Iraq even now. These bases, IMO, will be used as staging areas for opperations. We may be down sizing our troop occupation levels but those bases are being built to last. If Iraq can get to a point where they can govern themselves, I would anticipate the need for a standing occupation army to go away. However, that does not necessarily mean that we do not maintain bases in the Middle East. We are in Turkey and have been in Turkey now for a very long time.

Take a good look at this map. It kinda speaks to what I'm trying to convey. Our presence within the Middle East is stronger now then it has ever been in the history of our nation. It is an expensive proposition to build long lasting forces in other parts of the world but the far reaching effects of such an expidition could be enourmous.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/images/middleastmap.jpg



I don't think he'd be viewed so unfavorably had Iraq not entered the equation.

I still think much has note yet been written in the final analysis of this War. Time will tell.


People are obsessed with leaving. No one is saying that. Had they kept resources devoted to finishing off al-Qaida in Afghanistan, I think we'd be safer. Pakistan worries me more than any other country right now. Much more so than Iran.

Al-Qaida is a symptom. I do not mean to dismiss the importance of there role but in the long run, they would simply be replaced by another faction bent on many of the same kinds of things. Stability in the region is the key to ending this constint threat of terrorist threats IMO.

How again, does Iraq tie to 9/11? I think those that are making that leap are poorly informed.

Perhaps I am poorly informed. Could be that I am just making a lot of assumptions but I believe that there are bigger objectives in play. Then again, I believe that there are other forms of life in the Universe so you know, there is also that. :D


There were other options. The group that attacked our country was put on the back burner for Iraq. al-Qaida should have been completely neutralized before fulfilling the administration's personal goals.

The problem I have is viewing this as a personal thing with Bush. Nothing could be further from the truth IMO. I think it was a target of opportunity, invaded to serve a much larger objective. Now, this could be viewed as horrific as well, if true. I do not view it as such. I see it as a War that was eventually coming anyway. Now or later, I don't know that it would have made that much difference. Perhaps I am an extemist. I don't know. I am just looking at this from a military perspective, as opposed to a political one. It would certainly have been better if we had never had to go to war to begin with. I just don't believe that attacks would have stopped if we had only invaded and eliminated Al-Qaida. Eventually, somebody would have replaced them. The issue is much larger then that IMO. Unfortunatly, this is the world we live in.

[MC KAos]

Haha. All the world hates us because we have the nads to stand up for ourselves and fight terror.

How much do you think those 95% who hates us come crawling on their hands and knees when they need money, food or any other kind of aid?

Yeah, he's an idiot. He brought this country through one of it's most difficult times in history, but he's an idiot.

He stood up for America and spit in the eye of those who would do us harm.

Yeah, he's an idiot.

Honestly, we need more "idiots" like him rather than the idiots who constantly bash him without having a clue what they are talking about. :bang2:

bush is an idiot

[SuspectCorner]

Who cares? Everyone knows what the connotation meant and that was that Saddam was overthrown. That was the mission and it was accomplished. But people want to bang this same stupid drum over and over again.

This is exactly what I said in an earlier thread. These dopes keep brining it up, over and over again and the uneducated people who listen to it think Bush is a liar, doing a terrible job and all that crap.

When if they would for once be given the truth about things, his poll numbers would not be in the tank the way they are.

The truth? So, let me get this straight... you're saying that, after all these years, the George W Bush administration will suddenly undergo some kinda epiphany - and START dealing in the truth?

I'd sure like to see that.... but I won't hold my breath.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Cajuncowboy]

The truth? So, let me get this straight... you're saying that, after all these years, the George W Bush administration will suddenly undergo some kinda epiphany - and START dealing in the truth?

I'd sure like to see that.... but I won't hold my breath.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Comprehend much?

I was referring to the media.

[Cajuncowboy]

bush is an idiot

Wow, what an intelligent response.

[SuspectCorner]

What's your point? It is clearly not to discuss the topic at had. If you wish to discuss another topic, I am OK with this but lets not cross the two.

Post your topic and I'm happy to talk about it. Include your information on Depleated Uranium Weapons and we can talk about it. It's an interesting topic and one which I do not believe has been discussed on this board as yet.

Excuse me ABQ - but when you link the Bush-led US Iraq War effort and it's purpose to subjects like "terrorism" and WMDs - it really gets my dander up. As a nation, we appear to have been sold a "bill of goods" by the current administration - and none of the dramatic claims made by that administration, as a justification for the invasion, has borne any substantive fruit. Face it - the emperor has no clothes.

And now WE are fairly widely viewed as an aggressor nation. Now WE are guilty of using DU weapons in populated areas. Now WE are guilty of torturing prisoners - counter to the Geneva Conventions to which we are a signatory. Now WE have lost most of our moral authority with the world. Now WE are facing economic instability due greatly to our over-reaching efforts in the Middle East.

But you go ahead and hold your GWB pep rally. Just please excuse me if I'm not in the mood for cheers.

[SuspectCorner]

Comprehend much?

I was referring to the media.


Your words (not mine):

"This is exactly what I said in an earlier thread. These dopes (I assume here you mean the media) keep brining it up, over and over again and the uneducated people who listen to it think Bush is a liar, doing a terrible job and all that crap.

"When if they would for once be given the truth about things..."








It's pretty obvious to me you never bothered to access the link I provided backgrounding George Bush, his administration, and their relative position to the truth. Yet you question MY ability to comprehend. Hoo-boy. Ironic.

Let me quote George Bush directly:

BUSH: "Officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-05-01-voa68.cfm


Freedom from oppression, dictatorship, terrorism - yadda yadda... We came, we saw, we exercised our military might for the Arab World to see and be appropriately intimidated by.

But do you really think, over five years later and at great human and economic cost, we'd STILL be occupying that large piece of sand if it weren't nestled above one of the worlds largest oil fields?

[Cajuncowboy]

Your words (not mine):

"This is exactly what I said in an earlier thread. These dopes (I assume here you mean the media) keep brining it up, over and over again and the uneducated people who listen to it think Bush is a liar, doing a terrible job and all that crap.

"When if they would for once be given the truth about things..."







It's pretty obvious to me you never bothered to access the link I provided backgrounding George Bush, his administration, and their relative position to the truth. Yet you question MY ability to comprehend. Hoo-boy. Ironic.

Let me quote George Bush directly:

BUSH: "Officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-05-01-voa68.cfm


Freedom from oppression, dictatorship, terrorism - yadda yadda... We came, we saw, we exercised our military might for the Arab World to see and be appropriately intimidated by.

But do you really think, over five years later and at great human and economic cost, we'd STILL be occupying that large piece of sand if it weren't nestled above one of the worlds largest oil fields?

Wow. again, your comprehension fails you.

And major combat had ended in the battle for Iraq, Saddam was overthrown. At this point we were no longer at war WITH Iraq, but with the insurgents.

Why are you not able to grasp facts?

[DFWJC]

Ah President Bush, the idiot who gives all our past greats a bad name. Way to go Bush! Now 95% of the world hates us because of your idiotic under table tactics.

Maybe 95% of your world Dread. I would not say we are "hated" in India or even China or Argentina or much of the "new" Europe...and most certainly not in much of Africa--where Bush is somewhat of a hero for record Aids relief.

But I get your drift, the US has certainly been more popular in the past....especially in France, Spain, more than half of the rest of old Europe and much of the Middle East.

[zrinkill]

Wow. again, your comprehension fails you.

And major combat had ended in the battle for Iraq, Saddam was overthrown. At this point we were no longer at war WITH Iraq, but with the insurgents.

Why are you not able to grasp facts?

Does not surprise me when people like him do not grasp that.

What does surprise me is when ex military men do not grasp it ..... and I have seen a few.

[SuspectCorner]

Wow. again, your comprehension fails you.

And major combat had ended in the battle for Iraq, Saddam was overthrown. At this point we were no longer at war WITH Iraq, but with the insurgents.

Why are you not able to grasp facts?

I think it may be your comprehension that's at issue.

Sure, we were "no longer at war WITH Iraq" - but only in the sense that the Iraqi government had been dismantled in preparation for the US-overseen installation of a new one. The only hole in your logic, and it's a big one, is that most of the Iraqi people were still there - and many of them weren't terribly thrilled about the destruction of their homes and the killing of their family members. You can try to blame it all on "the insurgents" fouling the Bush Master Plan but the facts dispute this.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al - chose to ignore intel and assessments that didn't agree with their simplistic ideas that, in order to grab more oil and influence in the Middle East, they would merely depose Sadaam, build a few Taco Bells, Exxon stations, and a Disney Land - and the Iraqi people and Muslim world would all suddenly emrace us as "bringers of freedom".

Many, many people suspected the US would get bogged down in Iraq and Bush flatly ignored them. His grasp of the realities of war are evident in his Hollywood cowboy bravado... "Bring 'em on", etc. His presidency has been a black eye on US world standing.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html?ref=middleeast

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/28intel.html

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-211

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/03/28/iraqi_detentions_fuel_anti_us_sentiment/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4429137.stm

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40924

[Jordan55]

Wow! Suspect, thanks for the objective news sources, maybe I'll just go to KOS or Huffington's or Move On to get a better perspective.
No! your right we should admit our atrocities against the Iraqic people and the world.
Bow are head in defeat and get the hell out there, send Bush to Guantanamo Bay along with the other terrorists to await their day in court of course at tax payers expense. Abolutely Amazing
God Bless America, NO, NO ,NO, God Damn America
The Chickens have come home to roost!

[ABQCOWBOY]

Excuse me ABQ - but when you link the Bush-led US Iraq War effort and it's purpose to subjects like "terrorism" and WMDs - it really gets my dander up. As a nation, we appear to have been sold a "bill of goods" by the current administration - and none of the dramatic claims made by that administration, as a justification for the invasion, has borne any substantive fruit. Face it - the emperor has no clothes.

And now WE are fairly widely viewed as an aggressor nation. Now WE are guilty of using DU weapons in populated areas. Now WE are guilty of torturing prisoners - counter to the Geneva Conventions to which we are a signatory. Now WE have lost most of our moral authority with the world. Now WE are facing economic instability due greatly to our over-reaching efforts in the Middle East.

But you go ahead and hold your GWB pep rally. Just please excuse me if I'm not in the mood for cheers.

Makes little difference to me what your dander is up over or what it is not up over. You made reference to Wepons of mass distruction. I made reference to what was possibly considered prior to actually going in. That's your deal.

I also don't care what the rest of the world views us as. I have some small experience with "the rest of the world" and what drives there motives. If we fell off a cliff tomorrow, the rest of the world would not care much so long as there personal situations were not effected. That's the reality. Not saying we are different or even better. I'm just not kidding myself into believing the rest of the world is in this for a higher purpose. Germany, France, Russia, the UN, they all had reasons why they did not want us in this War and none of them were driven by there deeper care for Iraq and her people. It was all driven by money. That's the truth of it. You can be pissed, it's your choice. Makes very little difference to me.


You live in a fantasy world. We never had moral authority over anybody. We don't even have it over our own people. Perhaps it is you who should be in politics. That's as big a bill of goods as I've ever heard from any body. We torture, well, welcome to the party. Worse things go on all over the world, every day, in every nation. People are not good to one another and if you think it's just us and this war, then you are severly misinformed. All of that matters not. It's War and War is not a pretty thing.

If it makes you feel better to color this as a Bush Pep Rally, that's fine. I'm OK with whatever.

You are excused now. Be sure to cheer once you've left the building.

:laugh2: What are we 15?

[Jordan55]

Now that Iran, has controll over Lebanon via Hezbollah, all they have to do is wait out the political process here in the states to hand over Iraq to them.
The question is can anyone on the left see the big picture?
We can't leave Iraq, without causing untold consequences in the future for us.


The Iran-backed militia trounces ill-equipped Sunni fighters loyal to the pro-U.S. government. Analysts say Hezbollah's long- term goal is bolstering itself in its conflict with the U.S. and Israel.
By Borzou Daragahi and Raed Rafei, Special to The Times
May 10, 2008
BEIRUT -- In one swoop, the Shiite Muslim militia Hezbollah took over a large section of Lebanon's capital Friday, altering the country's political balance and demonstrating a level of military discipline and efficiency that left the pro-Western government struggling to exert its authority.

Within 12 hours, the Iranian-backed group dispatched hundreds of heavily armed Shiite fighters into the western half of Beirut, routing Sunni Muslim militiamen, destroying opponents' political offices and shutting down media outlets loyal to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and to Sunni leader Saad Hariri's Future movement.



Chickening out in Beirut
SUBSCRIBE to World: Mideast, The Times' free daily e-mail newsletter on the Middle East.
At least 10 people were killed in the fighting, security officials said. Hezbollah used a lot of gunfire but inflicted minimal damage to public infrastructure, they said.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese army largely stood aside, underscoring its reluctance to take sides in a political stalemate that has left the country without a president since November.

The clashes were troubling far beyond Lebanon's borders. The country, long an arena for competing regional interests, has become one of a number of political and military battlefields where allies of the United States compete against Iranian-backed interests. The U.S. sees the moderate, Western-leaning government as a model for the region; Iran, which nurtured Hezbollah from its birth, considers the Lebanese militia a major strategic asset.

The White House condemned the Hezbollah offensive, with spokesman Gordon Johndroe saying that the militant group had turned "its arms against the Lebanese people and challenged Lebanon's security forces for control of the streets."

On Friday, fighting that had raged for three days in the capital appeared to subside, though more confrontations were reported elsewhere, between Shiite militiamen and Druze and Sunni fighters. Beirut's international airport remained closed. Lebanese and foreigners fled the prospect of more fighting by heading across the Syrian border.

In West Beirut, Hezbollah fighters, wearing their signature ammo vests and black baseball caps, patrolled the streets, napped in the shade and directed traffic, politely stopping some vehicles to ask drivers and passengers for identification cards.

"During lunchtime if you place food on the table, by the time you've finished eating, we can take over," boasted one grizzled Hezbollah fighter patrolling famous Hamra Street.

He identified himself only by the nickname Zam-Zam. He held what he described as an Israeli-made M-16 assault rifle equipped with a night-vision scope and a laser sight.

"It was an insult for us to fight these people," he said of the Sunni militia loyal to the government. "We fight great armies."

However, few observers expect Hezbollah to try to take over Lebanon or even continue to police West Beirut, especially areas long dominated by its political rivals. The group's fighters avoided storming government buildings such as the Grand Serail, the gracious Ottoman-era palace that houses the prime minister.

Instead, the offensive was an "object lesson" meant to demonstrate the group's ability to quickly subdue its domestic rivals without exposing its arsenal of heavy weapons meant to target Israel in a potential war, said Boston University's Augustus Richard Norton, author of "Hezbollah: A Short History."

The conflict was triggered Tuesday when the government challenged Hezbollah's de facto autonomy by outlawing its strategic fiber-optic communications network. Hezbollah fighters responded by pushing into the heart of the capital from strongholds in south Beirut and southern Lebanon, an escalation in the political crisis that seemed to catch the Siniora administration by surprise.

Some of the government's major political backers appealed Friday night to the international community, the United Nations and other Arab countries for support. The crisis prompted calls for an emergency meeting Sunday among leaders of the Beirut government's Arab allies.



'Changing the equation'

"It's definitely changing the equation," said Oussama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies, a think tank. "Hezbollah is reshuffling the cards and redrawing the balance of power."

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has long vowed that the group would not turn its considerable arsenal of weapons on fellow Lebanese, though it has for at least a year been allowing proxy groups to do just that.

But he said he had no choice this time. He described the Cabinet decision to declare the group's private telecommunications network illegal a "declaration of war." He said it put the government in the camp of Israel, which Hezbollah fought to a standstill in a 2006 war that left more than 1,000 dead. Rather than wait for the government to try to enforce its decision, Hezbollah targeted the political powers behind it.

Government supporters called the move a coup d'etat meant to strangle Lebanon and bend it to Hezbollah's will.

"What happened in Beirut and its surroundings and in its international airport is an armed coup that was implemented by Hezbollah," said Samir Geagea, leader of the pro-Western branch of the Maronite Christian community.

For now, Hezbollah's offensive achieved one significant military goal: crushing the budding forces of Hariri's Sunni Future movement, a constellation of poorly trained and lightly equipped government supporters organized around neighborhood offices and private security companies run by retired army officers.

It also exposed the government's weak hand. Hezbollah was able to quickly take over the capital, its commanders rolling into town in late-model Chevrolet Suburbans -- and with the country's armed forces at times coordinating rather than impeding the militia's progress. Future movement fighters fled for their lives.



Offensive carries risks

Hezbollah's move carried risks, threatening to damage Nasrallah's considerable popularity in the Arab world, to jettison the delicate sectarian power-sharing arrangement that has kept Lebanon at peace since the end of a civil war in 1990 and to widen the rift between Shiites and Sunnis.

But mostly, analysts said, Hezbollah's response was aimed at giving itself and its Iranian and Syrian backers the breathing room to achieve their long-term strategic objectives of confronting Israel and deterring U.S. plans for the Middle East. The militant group did so by further weakening a Lebanese government it has perceived as a minor impediment to a broader vision. For Iran, Hezbollah is a key strategic asset in its standoff with the U.S. and Israel over Tehran's nuclear program and quest for regional influence.

"They're creating the necessary political space to protect what they think they're about," said Safa, of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies. "They see the government as at least hurting them in their plans to rebuild their weapons and make their great designs for the region. They cannot afford a bit of uncertainty about the future of their weapons."

daragahi@latimes.com

.

[Cajuncowboy]

I think it may be your comprehension that's at issue.

Sure, we were "no longer at war WITH Iraq" - but only in the sense that the Iraqi government had been dismantled in preparation for the US-overseen installation of a new one. The only hole in your logic, and it's a big one, is that most of the Iraqi people were still there - and many of them weren't terribly thrilled about the destruction of their homes and the killing of their family members. You can try to blame it all on "the insurgents" fouling the Bush Master Plan but the facts dispute this.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al - chose to ignore intel and assessments that didn't agree with their simplistic ideas that, in order to grab more oil and influence in the Middle East, they would merely depose Sadaam, build a few Taco Bells, Exxon stations, and a Disney Land - and the Iraqi people and Muslim world would all suddenly emrace us as "bringers of freedom".

Many, many people suspected the US would get bogged down in Iraq and Bush flatly ignored them. His grasp of the realities of war are evident in his Hollywood cowboy bravado... "Bring 'em on", etc. His presidency has been a black eye on US world standing.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html?ref=middleeast

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/28intel.html

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-211

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/03/28/iraqi_detentions_fuel_anti_us_sentiment/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4429137.stm

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40924


If you for one moment believe that the Iraqi people think that the foreign insurgents are NOT the problem then you are dumber than a sack of hammers.

They understand fully who is to blame. Most of them will tell you they are happy Saddam is gone. It is not the Iraqi people who are fighting us now.

You'd think by now people would get that through their thick heads.

[DaBoys4Life]

I think it may be your comprehension that's at issue.

Sure, we were "no longer at war WITH Iraq" - but only in the sense that the Iraqi government had been dismantled in preparation for the US-overseen installation of a new one. The only hole in your logic, and it's a big one, is that most of the Iraqi people were still there - and many of them weren't terribly thrilled about the destruction of their homes and the killing of their family members. You can try to blame it all on "the insurgents" fouling the Bush Master Plan but the facts dispute this.

Who ever thought we was going to go into Iraq overthrow thier government and then leave is sadly mistaken. There would have been no point in this war if we could not secure the oil and secure a government that would be willing to deal business with us.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al - chose to ignore intel and assessments that didn't agree with their simplistic ideas that, in order to grab more oil and influence in the Middle East, they would merely depose Sadaam, build a few Taco Bells, Exxon stations, and a Disney Land - and the Iraqi people and Muslim world would all suddenly emrace us as "bringers of freedom".

This comment has to be some type of joke are you attempting to use humour as a way to prove your point if so then you are failling horribly.

Many, many people suspected the US would get bogged down in Iraq and Bush flatly ignored them. His grasp of the realities of war are evident in his Hollywood cowboy bravado... "Bring 'em on", etc. His presidency has been a black eye on US world standing.

His presidency will allow us the ability to stay a top as one of the leading super nations in the world. By obtaining oil we obtain power and a government that is willing to deal with us afterwards and deal oil with us. Seems like America will stay on top with this move.

[SuspectCorner]

If you for one moment believe that the Iraqi people think that the foreign insurgents are NOT the problem then you are dumber than a sack of hammers.

They understand fully who is to blame. Most of them will tell you they are happy Saddam is gone. It is not the Iraqi people who are fighting us now.

You'd think by now people would get that through their thick heads.

The overwhelming majority of "insurgent" casualties have been Iraqi nationals: Ba'athists, Shia militia, Sunni nationalists, Sadrists, etc. Believe it or not - these are also Iraqi people.

"Al Queda" and "foreign insurgents" exaggerations are just another component of the Bush pro-war propaganda machine selling the continuation of this fiasco. Looks like they already rang you up, too. The corporate media continue to fail in their responsibility to accurately report facts. Instead, they act as little more than a megaphone for the Bush program of rhetoric and disinformation.

Now - about that bag of hammers... :D

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3965

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks16feb16,1,2165321.column

[SuspectCorner]

I think it may be your comprehension that's at issue.

Sure, we were "no longer at war WITH Iraq" - but only in the sense that the Iraqi government had been dismantled in preparation for the US-overseen installation of a new one. The only hole in your logic, and it's a big one, is that most of the Iraqi people were still there - and many of them weren't terribly thrilled about the destruction of their homes and the killing of their family members. You can try to blame it all on "the insurgents" fouling the Bush Master Plan but the facts dispute this.

Who ever thought we was going to go into Iraq overthrow thier government and then leave is sadly mistaken. There would have been no point in this war if we could not secure the oil and secure a government that would be willing to deal business with us.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al - chose to ignore intel and assessments that didn't agree with their simplistic ideas that, in order to grab more oil and influence in the Middle East, they would merely depose Sadaam, build a few Taco Bells, Exxon stations, and a Disney Land - and the Iraqi people and Muslim world would all suddenly emrace us as "bringers of freedom".

This comment has to be some type of joke are you attempting to use humour as a way to prove your point if so then you are failling horribly.

Many, many people suspected the US would get bogged down in Iraq and Bush flatly ignored them. His grasp of the realities of war are evident in his Hollywood cowboy bravado... "Bring 'em on", etc. His presidency has been a black eye on US world standing.

His presidency will allow us the ability to stay a top as one of the leading super nations in the world. By obtaining oil we obtain power and a government that is willing to deal with us afterwards and deal oil with us. Seems like America will stay on top with this move.


Yes, as you pointed out in numerous references to securing oil and securing a puppet government, the motives for the Iraq invasion appear to be expansionism and greed. I'm glad we agree on that.

And, while you applaud this agenda - I am adamantly opposed to it.

[Cajuncowboy]

The overwhelming majority of "insurgent" casualties have been Iraqi nationals: Ba'athists, Shia militia, Sunni nationalists, Sadrists, etc. Believe it or not - these are also Iraqi people.

"Al Queda" and "foreign insurgents" exaggerations are just another component of the Bush pro-war propaganda machine selling the continuation of this fiasco. Looks like they already rang you up, too. The corporate media continue to fail in their responsibility to accurately report facts. Instead, they act as little more than a megaphone for the Bush program of rhetoric and disinformation.

Now - about that bag of hammers... :D

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3965

Obviously you are dumber than a sack full of hammers.

You are swallowing the anti war propaganda.

[SuspectCorner]

Obviously you are dumber than a sack full of hammers.

You are swallowing the anti war propaganda.

Show me the evidence that undercuts my stance. Or has the name-calling resulted from your frustration at realizing you won't be able to. Because it just doesn't exist - or is so anemic it can be easily dismissed by facts. :D

[DaBoys4Life]

Yes, as you pointed out in numerous references to securing oil and securing a puppet government, the motives for the Iraq invasion appear to be expansionism and greed. I'm glad we agree on that.

And, while you applaud this agenda - I am adamantly opposed to it.

So then you are opposed to America been a 1st world country? You are oppossed to the nice little quirks that you have in life that other countries do not have. It cost to stay on top and we need the power money and resources to stay on top. I do not think it is greed.I think it is securing resources to benefit of the American people not just now but 50-60 years down the line.

[CowboyJeff]

It makes me wonder if we're all missing the intent of the "Mission Accomplished" sign....Maybe walking up to the podium and not tripping over his own two feet was "Mission Accomplished."

[SuspectCorner]

So then you are opposed to America been a 1st world country? You are oppossed to the nice little quirks that you have in life that other countries do not have. It cost to stay on top and we need the power money and resources to stay on top. I do not think it is greed.I think it is securing resources to benefit of the American people not just now but 50-60 years down the line.

You have quirks - while I enjoys "perks". :D

The scary part is NOT that misguided people like you will rationalize any foreign campaign if the end result is more American resources, power, etc. Regardless of the cost.

The scary part is that there are so many of you - that some are even allowed into positions of power within our own government.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The overwhelming majority of "insurgent" casualties have been Iraqi nationals: Ba'athists, Shia militia, Sunni nationalists, Sadrists, etc. Believe it or not - these are also Iraqi people.

"Al Queda" and "foreign insurgents" exaggerations are just another component of the Bush pro-war propaganda machine selling the continuation of this fiasco. Looks like they already rang you up, too. The corporate media continue to fail in their responsibility to accurately report facts. Instead, they act as little more than a megaphone for the Bush program of rhetoric and disinformation.

Now - about that bag of hammers... :D

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3965

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks16feb16,1,2165321.column

The overwhelming majority of casualties on 9/11 were also civilians. The question of who is paying the price is not a question at all. It is always the way things work in War. Unfortunate? Sure it is, however, not uncommen. This is the thing, and there is no getting around it. You can show no proof, whatever, that more casualties on American soil would not have been the result of not going to War. In fact, it is very likely that continued assaults on America and Americans would have been the likely outcome had we not gone to War. How do we know this? Well, we know this because Americans are still being targeted through out the world by Al Queda. We know this because they have publically spoken out about plans to continue strikes against us. We know this because they are on record as having planed other attacks against Americans and targets within the US, at the time of the 9/11 strikes. We did not start the War. The War came to us. You can say that it should only have been against this country or that country but what country was Bin Ladden from? He and his followers are from all regions within the Middle East. You can not say it should only have been agaisnt this country or that country. They live and breath in many countries in the Middle East. You can say that we should not have invaded Iraq but the truth it that this is a War that is not going to be short. It will be long. The reason George Bush Sr. did not sign a decloration of War previously, he new that once there, you could not leave. You would have to stay to complete the job. Honestly, I am not going to try and convince anybody of what a great job or horrible job Bush has done. I'm going to say that Bush has a job no American President wanted. He has a job that somebody would eventually have to do but the question of how to stop Terrorisam in the Middle East, or really the world, is not an easy task by any stretch. We did not ask for this War. It came to us but now we have it. We must fight to win or we too will live our lives with troops standing in Air Ports, holding automatice weapons and Dogs. Same with Ports and a much more aggresive board security. The kind that kills rather then deports. Your talking about an almost impossible job if you are taking a defensive posture as opposed to an offensive one. There is no easy answer but in all honesty, I would very much like to understand the alternative to not fighting a War. What else can we do to make sure our country and it's people are not targeted?

[SuspectCorner]

The overwhelming majority of casualties on 9/11 were also civilians. The question of who is paying the price is not a question at all. It is always the way things work in War. Unfortunate? Sure it is, however, not uncommen. This is the thing, and there is no getting around it. You can show no proof, whatever, that more casualties on American soil would not have been the result of not going to War. In fact, it is very likely that continued assaults on America and Americans would have been the likely outcome had we not gone to War. How do we know this? Well, we know this because Americans are still being targeted through out the world by Al Queda. We know this because they have publically spoken out about plans to continue strikes against us. We know this because they are on record as having planed other attacks against Americans and targets within the US, at the time of the 9/11 strikes. We did not start the War. The War came to us. You can say that it should only have been against this country or that country but what country was Bin Ladden from? He and his followers are from all regions within the Middle East. You can not say it should only have been agaisnt this country or that country. They live and breath in many countries in the Middle East. You can say that we should not have invaded Iraq but the truth it that this is a War that is not going to be short. It will be long. The reason George Bush Sr. did not sign a decloration of War previously, he new that once there, you could not leave. You would have to stay to complete the job. Honestly, I am not going to try and convince anybody of what a great job or horrible job Bush has done. I'm going to say that Bush has a job no American President wanted. He has a job that somebody would eventually have to do but the question of how to stop Terrorisam in the Middle East, or really the world, is not an easy task by any stretch. We did not ask for this War. It came to us but now we have it. We must fight to win or we too will live our lives with troops standing in Air Ports, holding automatice weapons and Dogs. Same with Ports and a much more aggresive board security. The kind that kills rather then deports. Your talking about an almost impossible job if you are taking a defensive posture as opposed to an offensive one. There is no easy answer but in all honesty, I would very much like to understand the alternative to not fighting a War. What else can we do to make sure our country and it's people are not targeted?

In the words of your daddy's daddy: "Read my lips"... the overwhelming majority of "insurgents" are Iraqi nationals. And there is absolutley no substantive evidence linking Sadaam to al Qaeda - wasn't then... isn't now.

Bush gets a free pass on Afghanistan - the evidence was overwhelming. Iraq? Eh - no. The majority of 9/11 participants were Saudi nationals, not a single Iraqi... not one - yet I didn't notice any Bush cries to invade Saudi Arabia. Hmmm.... I wonder why? Not.

Iraqi WMDs were a smokescreen for the Bush administration's intentions to do a little empire-building in the Middle East. Lay there hands on a firesale outlet of cheap crude and exert some additional control over Middle Eastern events.

But this war has NOT been in the best interests of our country or our countrymen. We continue to overextend ourselves by acting as "world cop" - leading to thousands of lost American lives and an economic "dent" that may ultimately reach a couple of trillion dollars. Yet the stubborn insist on topping off bad policy with yet more bad policy.

Now there is talk of engaging Iran.

Benjamin Franklin defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over - and expecting different results. He and Jefferson are prolly spinning in their graves about now.

[SuspectCorner]

And let me add that the Congress has let down the American people hugely - by not reeling in the madness that is "Bush-Cheney Gone Wild". Shame on you Democtrats that roll over for this administration.

[ABQCOWBOY]

In the words of your daddy's daddy: "Read my lips"... the overwhelming majority of "insurgents" are Iraqi nationals. And there is absolutley no substantive evidence linking Sadaam to al Qaeda - wasn't then... isn't now.

Bush gets a free pass on Afghanistan - the evidence was overwhelming. Iraq? Eh - no. The majority of 9/11 participants were Saudi nationals, not a single Iraqi... not one - yet I didn't notice any Bush cries to invade Saudi Arabia. Hmmm.... I wonder why? Not.

Iraqi WMDs were a smokescreen for the Bush administration's intentions to do a little empire-building in the Middle East. Lay there hands on a firesale outlet of cheap crude and exert some additional control over Middle Eastern events.

But this war has NOT been in the best interests of our country or our countrymen. We continue to overextend ourselves by acting as "world cop" - leading to thousands of lost American lives and an economic "dent" that may ultimately reach a couple of trillion dollars. Yet the stubborn insist on topping off bad policy with yet more bad policy.

Now there is talk of engaging Iran.

Benjamin Franklin defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over - and expecting different results. He and Jefferson are prolly spinning in their graves about now.


In the words you may be able to comprehend, don't cross the line. If you are asking to take a little break, I am happy to oblige for as long as you like.


"In the words of your daddy's daddy: "

That's unacceptable. If you are to heated in this matter to discuss it rationally, then excuse yourself from this conversation before you say something you will eventually regreat.

Now, I am not saying that Saddam is linked. I have my own opinion on that but since I can not support what I know, I will not try to push that agenda. In short, I never said that Saddam and Al Queda were linked. One has nothing to do with the other in this regard. I said that from a military point of view, it made sense to invade Iraq. Nothing more then that. This is War. Poland didn't deserve to be invaded in September of 39. South Korea didn't deserve to be invaded by North Korea in June of 1950. South Vietnam didn't deserve to be invaded by North Vietnam in 59. Afghanistan didn't deserve Osam Bin Laden and his Mujahid Army to start a Cival War after the widrawal of the Soviet Union in 89 either. 15 thousand dead and 50 thousand wonded. Why, because of power. After the Soviet withdrawel, and eventual fall of the Democratic of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was chief in claiming victory. In fact, he also took credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. Why, to bring himself prominance in the Arabic community. This is not a one sided War, as we all know.

Why are we discussing all of this? Because this War has been coming for many, many years. This War is not a direct result of our invasion of Iraq. It has been coming since 72. Nobody wanted to fight this War because everybody new this would be a War that would not have an exit strategy. What choices did our government have once the bombing occured? I mean, answer that question and then perhaps I can understand why some much hatred. If there was a way to do this outside of going to War, I don't know what it was.

[DaBoys4Life]

You have quirks - while I enjoys "perks". :D

The scary part is NOT that misguided people like you will rationalize any foreign campaign if the end result is more American resources, power, etc. Regardless of the cost.

The scary part is that there are so many of you - that some are even allowed into positions of power within our own government.

Yes in the means to the end is more resource for America power and us staying as a super power and ensuring things for the generations that are to come after us then I have no problem with it. How much longer do you think it will be until America starts it decline. We are already in massive amounts of debt put on top of the the Silver Tsunami that is about to hit we are looking at some serious problems for our country.

[SuspectCorner]

In the words you may be able to comprehend, don't cross the line. If you are asking to take a little break, I am happy to oblige for as long as you like.


"In the words of your daddy's daddy: "

That's unacceptable. If you are to heated in this matter to discuss it rationally, then excuse yourself from this conversation before you say something you will eventually regreat.

Now, I am not saying that Saddam is linked. I have my own opinion on that but since I can not support what I know, I will not try to push that agenda. In short, I never said that Saddam and Al Queda were linked. One has nothing to do with the other in this regard. I said that from a military point of view, it made sense to invade Iraq. Nothing more then that. This is War. Poland didn't deserve to be invaded in September of 39. South Korea didn't deserve to be invaded by North Korea in June of 1950. South Vietnam didn't deserve to be invaded by North Vietnam in 59. Afghanistan didn't deserve Osam Bin Laden and his Mujahid Army to start a Cival War after the widrawal of the Soviet Union in 89 either. 15 thousand dead and 50 thousand wonded. Why, because of power. After the Soviet withdrawel, and eventual fall of the Democratic of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was chief in claiming victory. In fact, he also took credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. Why, to bring himself prominance in the Arabic community. This is not a one sided War, as we all know.

Why are we discussing all of this? Because this War has been coming for many, many years. This War is not a direct result of our invasion of Iraq. It has been coming since 72. Nobody wanted to fight this War because everybody new this would be a War that would not have an exit strategy. What choices did our government have once the bombing occured? I mean, answer that question and then perhaps I can understand why some much hatred. If there was a way to do this outside of going to War, I don't know what it was.

I wasn't actually referring to your Dad, ABQ... when I wrote "your daddy's daddy" I was referring to our current President (your daddy...) and to his father - George Herbert Walker Bush (your daddy's daddy). "Read my lips" (...no new taxes) was one of GHWB's signature soundbites. It was absolutely NOT intended to be a personal attack.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I wasn't actually referring to your Dad, ABQ... when I wrote "your daddy's daddy" I was referring to our current President (your daddy...) and to his father - George Herbert Walker Bush (your daddy's daddy). "Read my lips" (...no new taxes) was one of GHWB's signature soundbites. It was absolutely NOT intended to be a personal attack.


Fair enough, I understand what you are trying to say. Clearly, I miss read your intent. I thought you were saying, "In the Words of your Daddy's Daddy" (as in "Who's your Daddy?" Kinda thing).

The subject matter is, IMO, an important one so it is good that we can discuss it in a rational manner. Please, continue making your points. I am very interested in your points of view. I may not agree with them all but I do want to understand what is driving them. My view of this is not really a political one as much as it is a belief that if War is upon us, we must do whatever it takes to insure victory. War will never be popular in our country for anything over a few months time. When the reality of War comes home to Americans, we quickly lose our taste for it. Why not, it's expensive, both in terms of people and money. Having said that, what choice is there? If you do nothing, you invite more attacks. If you send troops but then pull out quickly, you only feed the propaganda and make your enemy stronger. If you go about fighting a War in a piece meal fashion, the troops pay for our lack of support.

I am just of the opinion that once War is declaired, fight it to win it regardless. If that means invading Iraq, I'm all for it. If it means commiting to occupation of Iraq using perminant bases for long periods of time, I'm for it. This is not going to be a short War. I do not believe that anybody who gets elected is going to pull troops out. If they do, I believe other American Civilians will pay for it with there lives. My opinion is not a popular one, I know. However, I believe that it is correct and that we, as a country, should come round to the realization that no matter what party is in power, this War is not going to be short and it is not going to be easy on the American people. Our history is one of dealing with adverse conditions and over coming them. Our fathers struggled in vertually every War of significance we have ever fought. Unfortunatly, we will likely have to do the same. If there is another option, I'm ready to hear it but I honestly don't believe there is one. Once the first building was ablaze, I don't believe there was ever another option. That is my opinion.

[ConcordCowboy]

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070503/bagley.jpg

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070503/bagley.jpg

:laugh2:

That's pretty funny.

[ConcordCowboy]

:laugh2:

That's pretty funny.

I thought it was too. :p:

[Cajuncowboy]

In the words you may be able to comprehend, don't cross the line. If you are asking to take a little break, I am happy to oblige for as long as you like.


"In the words of your daddy's daddy: "

That's unacceptable. If you are to heated in this matter to discuss it rationally, then excuse yourself from this conversation before you say something you will eventually regreat.

Now, I am not saying that Saddam is linked. I have my own opinion on that but since I can not support what I know, I will not try to push that agenda. In short, I never said that Saddam and Al Queda were linked. One has nothing to do with the other in this regard. I said that from a military point of view, it made sense to invade Iraq. Nothing more then that. This is War. Poland didn't deserve to be invaded in September of 39. South Korea didn't deserve to be invaded by North Korea in June of 1950. South Vietnam didn't deserve to be invaded by North Vietnam in 59. Afghanistan didn't deserve Osam Bin Laden and his Mujahid Army to start a Cival War after the widrawal of the Soviet Union in 89 either. 15 thousand dead and 50 thousand wonded. Why, because of power. After the Soviet withdrawel, and eventual fall of the Democratic of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was chief in claiming victory. In fact, he also took credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. Why, to bring himself prominance in the Arabic community. This is not a one sided War, as we all know.

Why are we discussing all of this? Because this War has been coming for many, many years. This War is not a direct result of our invasion of Iraq. It has been coming since 72. Nobody wanted to fight this War because everybody new this would be a War that would not have an exit strategy. What choices did our government have once the bombing occured? I mean, answer that question and then perhaps I can understand why some much hatred. If there was a way to do this outside of going to War, I don't know what it was.

I will say this and it has been documented that Saddam was indeed a sponsor of terrorists and terrorists that killed innocent Americans.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to discuss regarding invading Iraq. It was warranted and justified simply on that basis alone, UN Resolutions notwithstanding.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I will say this and it has been documented that Saddam was indeed a sponsor of terrorists and terrorists that killed innocent Americans.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to discuss regarding invading Iraq. It was warranted and justified simply on that basis alone, UN Resolutions notwithstanding.

However he was NOT linked with AQ in which the admin tip toed around and alluded to even as late as this past year.

But this logic that they were sponsoring terrorists never seems to float IMO because if that reason is good enough on it's own, as some allude to, than we would destroy Saudi Arabia where almost all of the terrorists on 9/11 came from and also where a large degree of terrorists sponsorship comes from.

[ABQCOWBOY]

However he was NOT linked with AQ in which the admin tip toed around and alluded to even as late as this past year.

But this logic that they were sponsoring terrorists never seems to float IMO because if that reason is good enough on it's own, as some allude to, than we would destroy Saudi Arabia where almost all of the terrorists on 9/11 came from and also where a large degree of terrorists sponsorship comes from.

There is a very long trail of Terrorists who come from Saudi Arabia but there are many, many terrorists who come from all over the middle east, these days.

For example, there is an Egyption Al Queda as well. As everybody knows, Bin Laden came from Saudi. Back in the early 80s, he was one of the guys we financed to fight against the Soviet Union. I see him as a spoiled rich kid who wanted to be big time. His father was a contruction magnet in Saudi Arabia. The royal family of Saudi Arabia actually gave all construction rights to Bin Laden with respects to renovations of all Islamic Holy structures. For example, the Mecca, exclusively. While the front for the success of the Bin Laden group is construction, the real money was made in weapons. Bin Laden's construction company, because it has an exclusive contract from Fahd, to Bin Laden, there trucks were able to travel throughout the country unchecked. No UN inspections of any kind. No inspections at all. This is how they smuggled arms into the Middle East. It is also interesting to note that Yeslam Bin Laden, brother to Osama, heads the Bin Laden International Affairs dealings. He has very close ties to the French Government, who BTW, built the first Nuclear Plants in the Middle East, used to develop Nuclear Weapons Grade Plutonium (follow links back to Pakinstan). In fact, it is said that the lanuguage spoken in his own home is French. Makes you wonder why the French were so against War yeah? The very first contruction business and contracts awarded to Bin Laden Group were in 1972. What else happened in 1972? Of course, the other method of financing was the Golden Crescent. Basically a drug opperation financed by the CIA and run by Pakistan and Afghanistan dealers. In 1977, production of Heroin was zero. In 1979, this region of the world became the worlds largest producer of Heroin and Cocain, supply roughly 60% of the US market with these drugs. Drug addition in Pakistan went from nothing ot 1.2 Million by 1985. CIA controlled this opperation, Mujahid Guerillas made Afghan peasants grow the crops and Pakistanie ISI set up labs to process the Opium. These labs were run by local drug lords and Afghan leaders (Teliban, formerly known as Egyption Islamic Jihad.) and protected by Pakinstan ISI. Essentially, the drug problem in the US is a direct result of CIA run opperations used to support the Afghan War against Russia. Russia feel but at what cost? In large part, this is why Bin Laden has claimed that he is the one who was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union.

Interestingly enough, EIJ formed by Islambouli and a guy by the name of Ayman al Zwahari are responsible for the assasination of Anwar Sadat. Zwahari might sound familiar to you? He is one of the founding leaders of the Taliban. Islambouli and al Zwahari would later be replaced as leaders of EIJ by Hosni Mubarak, now the current President of Egypt since 1981. Strike anybody odd that Sadat would be assinated in 81 and Mubarak, former leader of EIJ now Taliban, would replace him? Strike anybody odd that when US troops invaded Afghanistan, Bin Laden escaped through Pakistan and held up there safely? This region is still the largest supplier of these drugs in the world. DEA drug efforts were burned at the cross in favor of CIA run drug production opporations.


I can go on for a very long time mapping dotted lines to terrorist events (all supported by Iran, in large part, and Iraq. In fact, while it is widely believed that Iraq and Iran are blood enemies, the truth of this matter is that Iraq's entirum President Jalal Talebani have had close relationships Iran for almost 25 years.) all over the world. Anybody ever wonder why we were so sure that there were weapons of mass distruction in Iraq? We provided the material to them. They went somewhere. Where did the Iraq AF go? It flew to Iran and is now part of there AF without ever having fired a shot at US forces. Why would a country that is being invaded by a Western aggresor not us it's AF but instead, send it to there historical blood fued enemy, Iran?


I'm rambling here. I think it's ironic that we have served as our own worst enemies in this War and the start of it can be traced back to 72. There have been both Democratic and Repbulican Presidents who have know what was going on the whole time. The responsability for this is not a George Bush presidency IMO. He shares responsability but it's not all on him. The truth, IMO, is that this War has been coming for years and nobody wanted to fight it. No US president wanted to fight a War that they new would require perminant occupation. Just so happens that Bush was the unlucky President who had no choice. I promise you that if his hand would not have been forced, he too would have tried to leave this problem for the next guy. Those who say he is fighting his fathers War are, IMO, not looking at the facts. His own father didn't want any part of this War. That's the truth.

Maybe I just see guys on grassy noles everywhere. However, I know what I know and I know that this War has been coming for years.

[Cajuncowboy]

However he was NOT linked with AQ in which the admin tip toed around and alluded to even as late as this past year.

But this logic that they were sponsoring terrorists never seems to float IMO because if that reason is good enough on it's own, as some allude to, than we would destroy Saudi Arabia where almost all of the terrorists on 9/11 came from and also where a large degree of terrorists sponsorship comes from.

There's a difference between coming from somewhere and sponsoring them. If you could find where the Saudi government sponsored them, then I would be all for taking them out. As for saddam, we KNOW, he sponsored terrorism for a fact.

[ABQCOWBOY]

There's a difference between coming from somewhere and sponsoring them. If you could find where the Saudi government sponsored them, then I would be all for taking them out. As for saddam, we KNOW, he sponsored terrorism for a fact.

We've already found where Saudi has sponsered terrorists. That's not even a question but carry on.

[Cajuncowboy]

We've already found where Saudi has sponsered terrorists. That's not even a question but carry on.

I was referring to the 9/11 terrorists and bin laden.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I was referring to the 9/11 terrorists and bin laden.

But Saddam did not sponsor the 9/11 terrorists or OBL. So what is your point here?

[Cajuncowboy]

But Saddam did not sponsor the 9/11 terrorists or OBL. So what is your point here?

The point is that where ever we find sponsors of terrorism, especially ones who have killed Americans, then we have every right and even the responsibility to go and take them out.

BTW, he did give aid and comfort to taliban fighters who were injured in Afghanistan.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The point is that where ever we find sponsors of terrorism, especially ones who have killed Americans, then we have every right and even the responsibility to go and take them out.

BTW, he did give aid and comfort to taliban fighters who were injured in Afghanistan.

So you agree we should take out Saudi Arabia. And once again he, saddam, DID NOT SPONSOR AQ!!!

[vta]

All of this aspect of the discussion seems predicated on certain conditions, regardless of their relevance or legitimacy.

This war isn't about 9/11, it's about the ideology that led to that day and the ideology is not indigenous to any one nation. Al qaeda and 9/11 are not terrorism encapsulated, they are by products of it and simply basing all actions on them is missing the big picture and just inviting more instances of that crap.

[Cajuncowboy]

So you agree we should take out Saudi Arabia. And once again he, saddam, DID NOT SPONSOR AQ!!!

If they sponsored a terrorist attack and it killed Americans, then yes. Though simply being FROM Saudi Arabia doesn't qualify.

But he did provide aid to our enemy in a time of war.

[BrAinPaiNt]

If they sponsored a terrorist attack and it killed Americans, then yes. Though simply being FROM Saudi Arabia doesn't qualify.

But he did provide aid to our enemy in a time of war.

Members of the Saudi Royal family have funded terrorists, have looked the other way when terrorists were caught and basically let them go. Saudi Arabia have had terrorists training camps within it's borders. So I am pretty sure some of those sponsored terrorists that were trained in Saudi Arabia have killed americans at some point.

But let's not let that get in the way of STILL trying to legitimize the whole Saddam sponsored terrorists and trying to tie that into 9/11.

[BrAinPaiNt]

All of this aspect of the discussion seems predicated on certain conditions, regardless of their relevance or legitimacy.

This war isn't about 9/11, it's about the ideology that led to that day and the ideology is not indigenous to any one nation. Al qaeda and 9/11 are not terrorism encapsulated, they are by products of it and simply basing all actions on them is missing the big picture and just inviting more instances of that crap.

The problem is that this administration has done everything to insinuate that Saddam was tied into 9/11 but when they are asked directly they say no he had not ties to 9/11.

Now that is some serious double talk going on with them. Even to this day they will still say terrorism and AQ while in the same sentence talking about Iraq.

AQ were never in Iraq until after the US invaded iraq.

[Cajuncowboy]

The problem is that this administration has done everything to insinuate that Saddam was tied into 9/11 but when they are asked directly they say no he had not ties to 9/11.

Now that is some serious double talk going on with them. Even to this day they will still say terrorism and AQ while in the same sentence talking about Iraq.

AQ were never in Iraq until after the US invaded iraq.

As well he should have tied it to him. This guy had proven time and time again that he would be in league with terrorists. Why wouldn't he get involved again? Add to that the fact that he gave aid to our enemy in a time of war, and I can easily see the link.

On top of all that, why would you still want a guy who paid to have Americans killed still in power?

[BrAinPaiNt]

As well he should have tied it to him. This guy had proven time and time again that he would be in league with terrorists. Why wouldn't he get involved again? Add to that the fact that he gave aid to our enemy in a time of war, and I can easily see the link.

On top of all that, why would you still want a guy who paid to have Americans killed still in power?



Perfect example of what I am talking about.

Even though they finally admit that Saddam had nothing to do with AQ and 9/11...their ways of talking around that still have people today believing it.

I guess bush was right about catapulting the propaganda.

And again i say to you...all that you accuse saddam of doing concerning sponsoring terrorists was done ten fold by Saudi and they also had many terrorists training camps.

But we just don't seem to mind those guys.

Oh I forgot...it is not fair to say the terrorists who did 9/11 were from Saudi, but it is ok to say a guy had some medical help once in Iraq so they are guilty.

ALLLLRIGHTY then.

[Cajuncowboy]

Perfect example of what I am talking about.

Even though they finally admit that Saddam had nothing to do with AQ and 9/11...their ways of talking around that still have people today believing it.

I guess bush was right about catapulting the propaganda.

And again i say to you...all that you accuse saddam of doing concerning sponsoring terrorists was done ten fold by Saudi and they also had many terrorists training camps.

But we just don't seem to mind those guys.

Oh I forgot...it is not fair to say the terrorists who did 9/11 were from Saudi, but it is ok to say a guy had some medical help once in Iraq so they are guilty.

ALLLLRIGHTY then.

Preposterous. I say again. Show me where Saudi Arabia sponsored a terrorist act against America. It shouldn't be that hard.

And yes, that "guy" was a terrorist who was fighting against America. Being former military, I would think that would bother you some.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Preposterous. I say again. Show me where Saudi Arabia sponsored a terrorist act against America. It shouldn't be that hard.

And yes, that "guy" was a terrorist who was fighting against America. Being former military, I would think that would bother you some.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/14/afx2138132.html

Article from 2005 that states our OWN government says that Saudi still is a significant source of terror funds. What terrorist??? Islamic Radicals of course, who we are at this moment...fighting against.

Some more links saying similar things...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror2apr02,1,1851447.story

Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000025.html

Education Minister, Limor Livnat, disclosed at a press conference yesterday in Washington that Saudia Arabia has funneled $135 million over the last 16 months to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the families of suicide bombers and other dead terrorists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36948-2002Oct16?language=printer

The Bush administration's efforts to cut off funds for international terrorism are destined to fail until it confronts Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have tolerated some of its wealthy citizens raising millions of dollars a year for al Qaeda, according to a new report from an influential foreign policy organization.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/saudi-arabia/TIS7PN44V381ANHEG

WASHINGTON -- Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.



Now since they say AQ and Hammas in those reports...I am sure somewhere along the way...a few of those guys have made their way into iraq since we invaded it and took a life or two.

As you being former military I would think it would bother you a little more that we are buddy buddy with both Saudi Arabia who have been sponsoring terrorists for years and also Pakistan who still lets OBL run free.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The problem is that this administration has done everything to insinuate that Saddam was tied into 9/11 but when they are asked directly they say no he had not ties to 9/11.

Now that is some serious double talk going on with them. Even to this day they will still say terrorism and AQ while in the same sentence talking about Iraq.

AQ were never in Iraq until after the US invaded iraq.


I believe the reason for this is that they can not confirm that Iraq aided in any of this without implicating the US and it's involvement in aiding and training terrorists themselves. We call it Guerilla Warfare training and tactics but those same tactics are employeed in terrorist activities used by insurgent groups, such as Al Queda or The Taliban. I can not comment on how dirty our hands are in this regard but I can say that there are many in our Government, on both sides of the house, that are not willing to tell all they know about Iraq, Iran, Saudi and US involvement in sponsered terrorisam. We don't lable it as terrorisam but there are many shades of gray attached to this.

[Cajuncowboy]

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/14/afx2138132.html

Article from 2005 that states our OWN government says that Saudi still is a significant source of terror funds. What terrorist??? Islamic Radicals of course, who we are at this moment...fighting against.

Some more links saying similar things...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror2apr02,1,1851447.story

Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000025.html

Education Minister, Limor Livnat, disclosed at a press conference yesterday in Washington that Saudia Arabia has funneled $135 million over the last 16 months to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the families of suicide bombers and other dead terrorists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36948-2002Oct16?language=printer

The Bush administration's efforts to cut off funds for international terrorism are destined to fail until it confronts Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have tolerated some of its wealthy citizens raising millions of dollars a year for al Qaeda, according to a new report from an influential foreign policy organization.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/saudi-arabia/TIS7PN44V381ANHEG

WASHINGTON -- Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.



Now since they say AQ and Hammas in those reports...I am sure somewhere along the way...a few of those guys have made their way into iraq since we invaded it and took a life or two.

As you being former military I would think it would bother you a little more that we are buddy buddy with both Saudi Arabia who have been sponsoring terrorists for years and also Pakistan who still lets OBL run free.

If those reports are true and based in fact then we need to take out Saudi Arabia and I would be all for it. As I said before, any country, and I mean any country who has supported the murder of innocent Americans should be dealt with the same way Saddam was. And they should come to their end the same way. Having their neck snapped at the end of a rope.

[SuspectCorner]

For anybody who still doubts that Dick Cheney is the most powerful acting Vice-President this country has ever known... with a li'l help from President Boob - err... Bush...



Target - Baghdad:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

http://www.counterpunch.org/singham07192003.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012402066.html



Saudi elements get a pass:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4635383.stm

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/20/did_bush_cut_secret_oil_deal

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103239/entry/2103433/


Next stop - Tehran:


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16971409/cheney_targets_iran

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cheney26mar26,1,7973825.story

[SuspectCorner]

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/14/afx2138132.html

Article from 2005 that states our OWN government says that Saudi still is a significant source of terror funds. What terrorist??? Islamic Radicals of course, who we are at this moment...fighting against.

Some more links saying similar things...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror2apr02,1,1851447.story

Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000025.html

Education Minister, Limor Livnat, disclosed at a press conference yesterday in Washington that Saudia Arabia has funneled $135 million over the last 16 months to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the families of suicide bombers and other dead terrorists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36948-2002Oct16?language=printer

The Bush administration's efforts to cut off funds for international terrorism are destined to fail until it confronts Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have tolerated some of its wealthy citizens raising millions of dollars a year for al Qaeda, according to a new report from an influential foreign policy organization.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/saudi-arabia/TIS7PN44V381ANHEG

WASHINGTON -- Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.



Now since they say AQ and Hammas in those reports...I am sure somewhere along the way...a few of those guys have made their way into iraq since we invaded it and took a life or two.

As you being former military I would think it would bother you a little more that we are buddy buddy with both Saudi Arabia who have been sponsoring terrorists for years and also Pakistan who still lets OBL run free.

Strong post Brain... if that doesn't spell it out in plain English - I'd sure like to know what does.

The trail darn sure seems to lead to Saudi doors. But being as the Saudi royal family are principally responsible for Bush family fortunes... somehow that trail just doesn't seem to be getting quite the media and public attention it's due. Now isn't that odd? Riiiiiight...... Par for the course.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Strong post Brain... if that doesn't spell it out in plain English - I'd sure like to know what does.

The trail darn sure seems to lead to Saudi doors. But being as the Saudi royal family are principally responsible for Bush family fortunes... somehow that trail just doesn't seem to be getting quite the media and public attention it's due. Now isn't that odd? Riiiiiight...... Par for the course.

Don't confuse this with just Bush and the current admin.

Two things are constant whether it be Repub or Dem holding office.

We are strong allies with both Saudi and Israel...which is kind of odd considering the idea that Saudi has sponsored hamas.

So although I love to bash bush on many occasions...it is not just him.

[SuspectCorner]

Don't confuse this with just Bush and the current admin.

Two things are constant whether it be Repub or Dem holding office.

We are strong allies with both Saudi and Israel...which is kind of odd considering the idea that Saudi has sponsored hamas.

So although I love to bash bush on many occasions...it is not just him.


That Saudi money seems to be everywhere and Bill and Hillary Clinton both seem to have tasted there share of it, too.

[trickblue]

That Saudi money seems to be everywhere and Bill and Hillary Clinton both seem to have tasted there share of it, too.

Accepting money from China is the dirtiest money the Clinton's ever took...

I guess nuclear technology is worth a lot these days...

[SuspectCorner]

Accepting money from China is the dirtiest money the Clinton's ever took...

I guess nuclear technology is worth a lot these days...

Money? He traded those radiation-hardened chips for the PRCs secret recipe for Szechuan Beef. He was getting sick of McDonald's.

[trickblue]

Money? He traded those radiation-hardened chips for the PRCs secret recipe for Szechuan Beef. He was getting sick of McDonald's.

:muttley: