|
|
Post by MO on May 28, 2004 17:35:22 GMT -5
LOL
More unsubstantiated claims.
You're still using the hysterical hyperbole you claim to despise.
The only countries to go against us in the UN have been found to be embezzling profits from the Food For Oil program, along with high ranking members of the UN itself. Don't think for a minute they were taking the moral high road when its been proven that they were lining their pockets at the expense of hungry Iraqi people. Yes, innocents die in war. Thousands were dying before the war at the hands of a brutal regime. What is it with some modern Americans? Some no longer believe freedom is a value worthy of fighting and dying for. They believe everything the anti-American press tells them. They hear very little about all the successes in Iraq and just drink up the kool aid.
I'm not concerned about "new terrorists." Bin Laden trained twenty thousand al qaeda members while Clinton was gutting our intelligence departments. Yes, they hate us but they always did. The only thing that will slow down terrorism is the spread of democracy.
It was the shrill screams of liberals at home who caused us to lose in Vietnam. Don't think you're doing your patriotic duty. We're already at war, now.
I'll let Phil deal with your other talking points. Since you quoted Phil, I'll assume you're talking to him.
I'm not a blind party loyalist. I hate his education bill and his expansion of Medicare, as well as a few other big issues. I will be voting for him because I don't trust our national security to Kerry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pez on May 28, 2004 21:19:27 GMT -5
A supporter of the war from the start, David Brooks, a moderate Republican with The New York Times, is now lamenting the inability of the Bush war cabinet to own up to its mistakes. Conservative columnist George Will reminds the offending soldiers that their "just following orders" defense was rejected by the war crimes tribunal in Nuremberg after World War II. Neo-conservative Robert Kagan writes, "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now." These are serious, smart Republicans who see in the prison scandal and mounting casualty reports a realization that Iraq is going very badly even if Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld won't admit it. DEFENSE SECRETARY Donald Rumsfeld can claim, as much as any man, to be the architect of victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom. History might also tag him as the architect of defeat in the larger war for Iraq. The secretary's mulish opposition to increasing the number of American soldiers in Iraq--and the narrow understanding of military "transformation" used to justify that stance--is a prime reason the Bush administration has had to go begging to the United Nations. In return for perhaps a couple of divisions' worth of Turkish, Indian, or Pakistani troops, the administration has suggested it is willing to subject the reconstruction of Iraq to a threat more lethal than Baathism and bin Ladenism combined: a French veto. There is universal agreement that the current force in Iraq is too small. The commander of the coalition task force in Iraq, U.S. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, has admitted there were multiple challenges "looming." Among these, he told the New York Times on September 5, are the need to seal the country's borders, disarm large rebel groups, and prevent civil war--a real danger, as Iraq's long-dominant Sunni minority fights to retain its status. "Today, if I had to," said Sanchez, "I could move forces to tackle any one of those challenges, but we would pull forces from an existing mission." U.S. Central Command says it needs six divisions, four of them American and the rest--anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 troops--contributed by the coalition. But the failure to line up more allies leaves a pretty significant shortfall and explains the dilemma Sanchez described. washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031211-052333-7063r.htmwww.militec-1.com/articles/SFTT.htmlwww.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/23/lugar_questions_us_policies_on_iraq_terrorism/THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity. Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations. He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany. “You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said. www.iraq.net/displayarticle59.htmlMore to come... |
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 28, 2004 22:51:22 GMT -5
Perhaps you don't understand. I don't form my opinions based on what other people think. I can bet that most of the conservative commentators will be voting for Bush, even when they disagree with something he does. We haven't been given a viable alternative, in my opinion. Yes, there have been plenty of problems but I believe overall, a great success. More little girls are in school, more people have uninterrupted power than ever before and hospitals that were once empty are places you can go for help. Small business is booming. We have people in our military that specialize in helping people start a business. It is thriving! Yes, there are problems in some areas and there have been horrid things. I don't blame the administration for the actions of a few people half a world away. I will no longer even entertain the notion that SoDamn Insane was not linked to Iraq. The media reported on it often and for years, up until they began their "hate Bush" campaign. Read this article. It's two pages but a good read. www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1Here are a few snips! Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:
Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.
Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden.
Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.
NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report.
Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.
By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."
I have decided to only edit/delete when necessary to unregistered posters who post under different names, but not respond to their posts. It makes me feel like I'm conversing with someone afflicted with multiple personality disorder. Besides, it's intellectually dishonest to people who might read the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on May 29, 2004 1:06:25 GMT -5
Put your money where your mouth is and prove it.  A little hyperbole of your own perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Pez Head on May 29, 2004 1:45:44 GMT -5
lol, I wasn't even thinking like that. We were the only two people talking, and I switch names all the time on other boards without anyone becoming confused.
I'll stick to one from now on-I've only been in this thread, no other. (came here through a google search)
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Pez Head on May 29, 2004 2:08:14 GMT -5
Nor do I.
You misunderstand me too.
I still support the war in Iraq.
My trouble comes from the the dangerous lack of concern shown for the realities of the world shown by the Bush administration.
Whether you care to admit or not, perception creates reality. If it looks like we're on a crusade to destroy innocent muslims, it dosen't matter that it's not true if we can't even acknowledge the problems that lead to that misunderstanding in the first place.
A good leader needs to understand why people do the things they do, and represent us in such a way that he inspires more than those in his choir.
Bush has time and time again, shown a hatred for such complexities.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 29, 2004 2:38:34 GMT -5
I do understand that! I also understand that Islamic terrorist are very good at world wide propaganda. That is where I think the American press and the American hand wringers are complicit in terrorism. They eat it all up. I don't think so! Which countries were the biggest beneficiaries of the Food For Oil Program? Which countries have sold the most weapons systems to Iraq, despite the sanctions? The bulk of the FFO money was flowing through a French bank. I won't assume you know about the scandal in general, so here is a link. abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.htmlFRANCE< GERMANY< RUSSIA! www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfmWho benefits from keeping Saddam in power? www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0330foodprobe.htmSecurity Council members, except Russia, were ready on Tuesday to welcome a United Nations investigation into allegations of corruption in the now defunct Iraq oil-for-food program, diplomats said. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan notified council members last week he was setting up an independent panel to probe any wrongdoing by U.N. officials running the program, but needed backing from member states to investigate companies around the world. Just as The League of Nations fell apart, so must the UN. Patriots and believers in democracy don't rely on corrupt, unelected, international bodies to call the shots. That is giving ourselves to a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on May 29, 2004 8:05:22 GMT -5
Black Helicopter,
Pardon me, but have we not worked the diplomacy angle to no avail? We inspected, we set reasonable deadlines for cooperation (which included the U.N's participation). This went on forever, and when we actually implemented of plan of action as we said we would; the left is appalled. Diplomacy? Your joking, right? Who do you think we're dealing with over there? Diplomats? How about terrorists?
Potential allies. What in the hell does that mean? Who, if anyone, were our "potential allies"? Our status remains unchanged in terms of who our friends are. This conflict has only brought the alliances to light.
Who would you say was the "the best and the most qualified" to hold the office of president? John Kerry??
I don't think so.
The left's whole campaign IS name calling. Just look at the news. Listen to Al Gore, who I think represents the Democratic party perfectly. Hear his speech? I'm sure that one helped the war effort. How "monstrously" irresponsible was that?
And what do mean "they" think we've called for a religious war? The religious fanantics who think it's OK to kill people? Is that who you're referring to? Who knows or cares what "they" think.
I would suggest that you sir, are not a "moderate". Get a clue.
|
|
