The War in Iraq

[phil]

a captured al-quaeda member said that it was our quick response that disrupted their September 11, 2001 plan. They were going to attack about a DOZEN cities. They succeeded in attacking two. Two-thirds of al-quaeda is gone. they cannot attack us anymore because they are gone. If not war, then what??? I remember. Attack after attack after attack, that's what. That's what we had under Clinton, and it led up to September 11! It was called 'rollback'. Bush changed the policy to 'elimination'. We have not had any more attacks in this country.

[phil]

a captured al-quaeda member said that it was our quick response that disrupted their September 11, 2001 plan. They were going to attack about a DOZEN cities. They succeeded in attacking two. Two-thirds of al-quaeda is gone. they cannot attack us anymore because they are gone. If not war, then what??? I remember. Attack after attack after attack, that's what. That's what we had under Clinton, and it led up to September 11! It was called 'rollback'. Bush changed the policy to 'elimination'. We have not had any more attacks in this country. Condi Rice said we needed to do something about bin laden way back in 2000, before she was appointed by Bush, while Clinton was president. Sometimes war IS necessary.
www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm

[phil]

oh no! we're going to make the terrorists mad!! oh, we can't have that, can we?

one question, when have the terrorists NOT been mad at us?

We have crushed the Taliban, and crippled al-qaeda. not for fun, but because these actions are necessary. these people are bent on death and destruction of innocent civilians.

Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors left inside, going through a living hell.
And you say we shouldn't worry about bin laden.
Have you forgotten?

[MO]

Welcome to the board, Phil.

[Favre]

Welcome indeed!

[Nathan]

We're talking about the war in iraq, not the war in afghanistan. I supported the war in afghanistan. Saddam has very little to do with the war on terrorism.

another thing, al-qaeda is a joke and is dead.

If you'll read into the reports, pretty much every attack performed in the last couple of years, possibly including 9-11 was performed by "al-qaeda affiliates"

"al-qaeda affiliate" is a term for any one of hundreds of terroists organizations that act indepentently of al-qaeda, and have very little to do with al-qaeda other than having the same message and the same goals.

These groups are alive and well, and growing rapidly.

[casesensitive]

Let's all take a look at what Democatic leaders had to say about Iraq before the war began:
www.yardneyenterprises.com/vision_projector/

[Favre]

We're talking about the war in iraq, not the war in afghanistan. I supported the war in afghanistan. Saddam has very little to do with the war on terrorism.

Ever heard of Hamas? Hezbollah? Islamic Jihad? Saddam had little to do with that huh?

[LucusHam]

Did anyone see that new footage on FNC this morning? It was from a cameraman embedded in Fallujah. Very powerful images, the best I've seen since shock and awe.

[JesterCerberus]

I believe that the war in Iraq did not make the world safer. I think the more we antagonize the rest of the world the less safe we will be. The best way to ward of terrorism is intelligence; only by knowing what terrorist groups are planning can we stop them because due to the volatile nature of today’s weapons and the relative ease in which a small number can kill so many invading one country that supports terrorism is like throwing salt in the wind. Instead I think we need to use alliances and groups such as the UN to keep the free world safe. I don’t think of it as kowtowing or handing over our country, rather I think it is important to have allies all over the world to build an intelligence network that makes terrorism much more difficult to plan. As far as other dictators that do horrible things to there people I am likewise sympathetic to there needs but I think the present situation in Iraq would show that even if we want to free the people they are often less appreciative than we think they might. It may be the arrogance that we do it with, and maybe i9f more countries were involved they wouldn’t be so angry about the invasion.

[MO]

home.earthlink.net/~tenmilesofbadroad/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/puke.gif
[/img]
Being reactive to terrorism didn't work. Real men know it's a cancer that must be removed. Cowering in a corner will not make us safe. We are at war whether we fight back or not. I'm just amazed at the people who think so little of the troops to still be engaging in pillow-biting.

The UN is involved in the biggest power and money and cover-up scandal the world has ever seen. I think we should give those worthless apes that are dressed up like statesmen twenty-four hours to get the hell out of NY.

[scummybear]

JesterCerberus said:

I believe that the war in Iraq did not make the world safer. I think the more we antagonize the rest of the world the less safe we will be. The best way to ward of terrorism is intelligence; only by knowing what terrorist groups are planning can we stop them because due to the volatile nature of today’s weapons and the relative ease in which a small number can kill so many invading one country that supports terrorism is like throwing salt in the wind. Instead I think we need to use alliances and groups such as the UN to keep the free world safe. I don’t think of it as kowtowing or handing over our country, rather I think it is important to have allies all over the world to build an intelligence network that makes terrorism much more difficult to plan. As far as other dictators that do horrible things to there people I am likewise sympathetic to there needs but I think the present situation in Iraq would show that even if we want to free the people they are often less appreciative than we think they might. It may be the arrogance that we do it with, and maybe i9f more countries were involved they wouldn’t be so angry about the invasion.

Do you think that the world would be a safer place if we just crouched in the corner and urinated on ouselves everytime we're attacked, or threatened by some despotic scumbag? What really amazes me is that everybody and their grandmother- democrats, republicans, nations, the UN- EVERYBODY! acknowledged in print, on audio and every media forum possible that Saddam Hussain has been, is, will be, a danger to other countries, especially our own if he is not stopped. And now that we have actually done something about it, the left has nothing but contempt for our own country.

People like you are worried about the world court of opinion so much, that you would compromise any fashion of resolve just to be liked by the French and the Germans (which btw are just about the only folks who aren't trying to help us) who most of the left believes comprises the rest of the world.

I realize that you are young, so let me enlighten you about something else:

The U.N cannot keep despots out of it's own organization much less "keep the free world safe"
Some of the world's most notorious crimminals are members in good standing within the United Nations.
The UN couldn't care less about the security interests of the US and it's allies.

My definition of arrogance is slaughtering americans, oppressing and slaughtering your own people, and defying anyone to do anything about it.

[Mess o Potamia]

KirkVining
Senior Member

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 555
Next Bush Scandal: Ahmad Chalabi and the Rube VP
Perhaps you haven't heard of Ahmad Chalabi. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, he headed an Iraqi exile group called the Iraqi National Congress. Before that, he was an indicted bank swindler in Jordon, from where he escaped and headed here. He took the money he stole, headed to Washington, and set up his little exile group as a lobbying firm. The person he lobbied was our Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney loved what Chalibi was saying so much, he put this man on the U.S. payroll at the tune of $300,000 a month salary. What was Mr. Chalibi telling Mr. Cheney that was so sweet?

1) He knew where the WMDs where and knew Saaddam was building A-Bombs, and could take us to them

2) His INC had a huge underground militia in Iraq that would rise up when we attacked

3) He knew the people of Iraq would great us as liberators

Unfortunately, he was also a consummate liar and con man, and our VP the consummate sucker. His real plan was to become the next Saddam Hussien, thanks to the help of our rube Vice President. It is these two men who got us into this mess, the Giant Mess o' Potamia. He is also probably an Iranian spy. People actually told Mr. Cheney this months and months ago. He didn't care. In fact, he kept him on his payroll until two weeks ago, finally dumping him probably when the CIA told him Chalibi was about to be arrested as a traitor:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html

You can read all about how our incompetent VP got us suckered
into an unnecessary war at: (note how long ago it was written)

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3475064/site/newsweek/

Are we fignting the War In Iraq, or the Great Suckers War? Whose the biggest chump - Cheney or the American Taxpayer?


Last edited by KirkVining on 05-20-2004 at 11:35 PM

[MO]

Spies happen.
Interesting that you indict Dick Cheney for it.
The classified documents released as a result of the Verona Project have cleared Sen. Joe McCarthy and cast some shadows on the FDR administration. Do you acknowledge that? Do you hold FDR responsible for the Rosenbergs?

Also interesting that Dick Cheney was supposed to know better, and you speak nothing of a plot that the UN was so involved in. I guess one man, the VP of the US, was supposed to clean up the UN.

All these problems just mean that we need to ditch the UN. We finance about 90% of that body of terrorism and corruption.

[Matt]

At first I supported the war on Iraq, until I saw the whole picture. Saddam may have been a peice of crap, but nobody rebelled against him because he was a brutal mother *censored*er. We don't need a democracy in Iraq, we need another butthole that bombs their villages daily and strikes fear into them. Why do you think in the beginning of the war was mainly against the Iraqi army and civilians? They knew that if Saddam somehow survived this, he would kill them and their families. Since his capture, many of the Iraqi civilians are now saying that they support the war. The only people that we fight anymore are the militants that cross over the border from Syria. Now, these are the people that hear about the US being on Middle Eastern soil and fall for the propaganda that has been pumped into them to hate the US. Its just a modern form of Hitler's Youth. They go around and start shooting their guns in the air and make that stupid noise they make. Why you may ask? Because for some reason god (or allah) says they should kill people in his name so they can go to heaven. Why else would you strap a bomb onto your chest and go onto a bus to blow yourself up. Why would allah reward murder with nirvana? It doesn't make sense.
After thinking it over, I think I have a way to solve the problems in the Middle East. We let their women be free and capture Mecca. If we take ahold of Mecca, they can't complete on of the five pillars and in turn won't kill themselves in the name of allah to reach nirvana. We could also make it legal to only pray four times a day. If you disagree with anything I had to say, then please respond.