|
Post by Noname on Apr 22, 2004 4:20:45 GMT -5
You want to make a point, talk about how many other attackes have been prevented because now we are paying attention. I did think about that, but, what always seem to come to mind after thinking about that, is the mere fact that there seem to be a lot more plan of attacks from terrorists groups ever since Bush started this war in Iraq, compared to any US Presidental Administration. Remember, Bush did utter the words of "Bring'm on".
|
|
|
Post by benwhipdrofn on Apr 22, 2004 12:27:53 GMT -5
While there will be a good amount of people who would disagree, the war in Iraq was something that would have happened sooner or later.
WE were attached plenty during other presidental administrations, they just weren't made into a big deal. I have several friends in the military who were extremely upset that not more was done when our US embassies and naval forces where being attacked during peace time.
As far as freeing Iraq it's easy to say leave them alone when we are not the ones living there. NO person gets to choose who their parents are, what color they are, what nationality they are and where they were born. The people in Iraq did not get to choose to live under a dictator and the many mass graves that have been found were proof of what happened if you complained. It's easy to walk through life saying, it's not our problem, but with out own freedoms, we must defend the smaller guys. That's comes with the label of "superpower". Yes, a lot of our military men and women are dying over there. Those people knew when they joined our armed forces that might happen. Does it suck yes, but what the Iraqi people have had to live with, well I wouldn't want to live in their shoes even one day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2004 12:45:13 GMT -5
Those were NOT the reasons given for invading Iraq.
And, even if they were, the U.S. has NO right to attack another country without support from the rest of the world.
Contrary to what BiK believes, we do not get to decide what's best for other countries. And rightly so, given our real motivation.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 22, 2004 13:11:02 GMT -5
WOW, I do not think that this is part of this forum for me. People are ***ching and complaining about the added security at airposts after the fact....can you imagine trying to pull off extra security before that happened. I'm sorry, folks, but there is no way in the world that I am going to believe that they ignored information. Yes, they had the info and it gave some information, but was it going to be tomorrow, next year, when? Stop blaming Bush for 9-11. It wasn't his fault, it wasn't Rice's fault, it wasn't even Clinton's fault, (which I wish I could blame it on him, but you can't) Now, I'm only in my mid 30's, but terrorism has been around for a while. This is not the first time we've been hit. It was only a matter of time. What **sses me off is how much money is all this crap taking. AND no matter if we find Osama and lock Sadam up forever, there will be another nutjob to bomb us or someone else. You want to make a point, talk about how many other attackes have been prevented because now we are paying attention. As long as we have freedom, we will have terrorist. AND the NOW the national organization of women should not be saying anything. Don't they understand that because of our freedoms that American women have makes us a target for these types of attacks. Have they not seen or watched any of the programs of the AFgan or Iraqi women? The NOW just wants to see their names in the headlines. Where in this stream do you actually find anyone complaining about the level of security at airports? (R)uffda! made the comment that he noted there was heightened security (scanner levels being set off by items not previously doing so and the like) on 9/9/2001. Two days before the attacks of 9/11/2001 and was expressing that he was at the time wondering "what was up". Rice claims there was no evidence of immediate attacks to be taking place at that times. She claimed she didn't warn SF's mayor of such attacks,even though he did cancel his flight for 9/11) She claimed she gave warnings to no one,even though a number of other government officials also cancelled their flights for 9/11. Yet with "no warnings being given" we have heightened security at airports two days before the attacks take place. Is that proof that warnings were given? Certainly not, however, it does definitely raise suspicions (more so when connected with the cancelled flights of 9/11 and other "coincidences") regarding the likelihood of pre-9/11 warnings. Especially considering the number of times Rice has vehemently denied something in recent weeks only to turn around on short order to change her story.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 22, 2004 13:20:19 GMT -5
Those were NOT the reasons given for invading Iraq. And, even if they were, the U.S. has NO right to attack another country without support from the rest of the world. Contrary to what BiK believes, we do not get to decide what's best for other countries. And rightly so, given our real motivation. I didn't say anything about America getting to decide what's best for other countries. America does however, get to decide what's in it's own best interest without seeking permission from the rest of the world. The sooner you realize this, the better off you'll be. What is the real motivation (R)uffda? Do you think your superiors at the CIA will mind if you explain to us normal folks what the real motivation is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2004 13:27:50 GMT -5
I want to reiterate that I in no way find W and his guys to blame for 9/11, nor do I think they could have prevented it. It could have been prevented, but not by W, and it would have taken some good luck.
Unfortunately, there was very little that went our way that day, aside from the fact a lot of people were able to get out of the buildings.
I do not, however, appreciate the Bushies lying about what they knew. Of course, I don't appreciate ANY of their lies and distortions, but that seems to be par for the course for this Administration.
I also do not find fault with Clark's apology. I thought it was classy. Fact is, we DO expect our Government to protect us. They can't always, but that doesn't mean they can't express regret for failing to do so.
Bush never makes mistakes, however. How can he? He's God's servant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2004 13:39:50 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about America getting to decide what's best for other countries. America does however, get to decide what's in it's own best interest without seeking permission from the rest of the world. The sooner you realize this, the better off you'll be. Right. If it's in OUR best interest, to hell with the rest of the world. That's precisely the mentality to which I object. Besides that, it was NOT in our best interests. All of W's pre-war justifications have proven false. Admit it. Spare me the sarcasm. YOU stated the motivation. It was in "our best interests." What were those interests? Beats me. Bush keeps changing his tune. Now it was because we are a model to the world. Or because when we say something, we need to follow through. Or God told him to do it. Regardless, who is going to follow us when everything we do is based on whether it's in OUR best interests? If you want my OPINION, I think the Neo-Cons believed they could set Iraq up as a model for the rest of the Arab world, and, in the process, make a fortune doing so. I also believe there are those in that camp who want the battle to be fought in Iraq rather than in America--they think they can contain it there, focus the energies of al Qaeda and their ilk there.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 22, 2004 13:41:15 GMT -5
I also do not find fault with Clark's apology. I thought it was classy. Fact is, we DO expect our Government to protect us. They can't always, but that doesn't mean they can't express regret for failing to do so. I found it to be audacious and phoney. Clark should be embarrassed for playing on the emotions of those people with his insincere charade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2004 13:47:13 GMT -5
I found it to be audacious and phoney. Clark should be embarrased for playing on the emotions of those people with his insincere charade. Well, you would, wouldn't you? And how the heck do YOU know, Mr. Objectivity, that it was insincere? You should give more credit to people, BiK. Of course, it does appear you would fit right in with W's other sycophants.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 22, 2004 13:49:16 GMT -5
If you want my OPINION, I think the Neo-Cons believed they could set Iraq up as a model for the rest of the Arab world, and, in the process, make a fortune doing so. I also believe there are those in that camp who want the battle to be fought in Iraq rather than in America--they think they can contain it there, focus the energies of al Qaeda and their ilk there. I agree with the second half of your opinion. American presence in Iraq also keeps the terrorists supporting Iranian and Syrian leaderships in check. I define "best interests" as it pertains to this discussion as a means for ensuring security back home. The fight is better fought there than on American soil. By George, I think you're starting to come around.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 22, 2004 13:56:17 GMT -5
Well, you would, wouldn't you? And how the heck do YOU know, Mr. Objectivity, that it was insincere? You should give more credit to people, BiK. Of course, it does appear you would fit right in with W's other sycophants. Absolutely! I know because he expressed ( unknowingly of course ) all the characteristics of a charlatan......Looking down and away, clasped fingers, wiggling ears, all on display for the trained eye to see. He was only interested in promoting his book and used the hearings as a platform to launch the book. His insincere apology was done to validate his person. The audacity! you should be ashamed of yourself for falling prey to such poppycock. sychophant? nah not me, you're mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Noname on Apr 22, 2004 15:35:49 GMT -5
While there will be a good amount of people who would disagree, the war in Iraq was something that would have happened sooner or later. WE were attached plenty during other presidental administrations, they just weren't made into a big deal. I have several friends in the military who were extremely upset that not more was done when our US embassies and naval forces where being attacked during peace time. When I stated - the mere fact that there seem to be a lot more plan of attacks from terrorists groups ever since Bush started this war in Iraq, compared to any US Presidental Administration. Remember, Bush did utter the words of "Bring'm on". - I was referring to worldwide and not just concerning the US. As for your first statement in the quote box, are you now saying that this war was planned ahead of time and that this would've happened sooner or later?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 22, 2004 18:37:01 GMT -5
Absolutely! I know because he expressed ( unknowingly of course ) all the characteristics of a charlatan......Looking down and away, clasped fingers, wiggling ears, all on display for the trained eye to see. He was only interested in promoting his book and used the hearings as a platform to launch the book. His insincere apology was done to validate his person. The audacity! you should be ashamed of yourself for falling prey to such poppycock. sychophant? nah not me, you're mistaken. So you're an expert reader of body language now? Why is it that you consistently fail to be able to see it in Rice, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others of the present administration? It sounds like a rather (two-faced) rationalization when you continue to "see things" regarding those you're apparently trying to hate and "see" some invisible halos in others who appear to have you infatuated.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 22, 2004 18:46:21 GMT -5
American presence in Iraq also keeps the terrorists supporting Iranian and Syrian leaderships in check. Try convincing the families of the people that died in the explosion of the Spanish train that the presence of US in Iraq is keeping those terrorists in check. Didn't the people claiming credit for the attack at least in part say they were doing so beause of Spains support for the US invasion of Iraq? The US presence there, especially in the handling of the recent increase in attacks by the insurgents appears to if anything be causing the terrorist to much bolder actions. Hopefully our militatary can (and will) find a way to get things more under control, but it certainly isn't looking at it so far. It is sad that we've lost more US citizens to the battles in Iraq since Bush declared the war was over than before that declaration. With no reasonable signs of the increased losses turning around any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by benwhipdrofn on Apr 22, 2004 21:48:58 GMT -5
how about simply getting a tyrant out of power. How about just doing the right thing, helping the people of Iraq. How about the simple underestimated way of life called freedom. Being able to worship who you want without being shot. How about being a female and being able to attend school. Being able to learn to read and write.
ok call me a romantic, but how about a realist. I'm sitting here often looking over what kind of scholarships are available for my daughter and she is still 5 years away from college. But by God, she has the freedom to go to college if she wants to. She has the freedom to speak her mind, learn more than a man if she wants. Call me whatever you want, but that is reason enough to take Saddam out of power.
I know about 50 guys who are over there right now and everyone of them are very proud to be there. Even with the violence now, They say the television shows the outcry, but these are the same people who also are glad that even if their "churches" are being bombed, at least they have the freedom now to worship in their own way.
Do we have a vested interest....oh I'm sure we do....there is a lot of oil over there.....but why is it so hard to see that this man was a bully in the worst way and needed to be stopped. Oh, and you've made several comments about Bush being God's man.....hmmmm.....so. Does this offend you, the fact that we have a president that prays, so did Clinton, or at least he says he did.....so you don't like the fact that Bush is a christian.....well guess what...thank GOD that you live in America because if this was Iraq and Bush was Saddam, you'd be bending your knee and praying often or you'd lose your head....once again, freedom. It's a beautiful thing when you completely understand it.
|
|