Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on September 25, 2002, 11:52:28 AM
-
DASCHLE ERUPTS: STOP POLITICIZING WAR, MR. PRESIDENT; CALLS FOR APOLOGY
Daschle on the Seante Floor, in progress: "...reports of the vice president, the vice president comes to fund-raisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fund-raiser was, ``Cheney Talks About War: Electing Taft Would Aid War effort.''
And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote in the disk was ``focus on war.''
I guess right from the beginning, I felt, well, first it was pollsters, then it was White House staff, and then it was the vice president, and all along I was asked, are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized, and my answer on every occasion was yes. And then the follow-up question is, is the White House politicizing the war? And I said without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.
But then I read in the paper this morning. Now, even the president. The president is quoted in ``The Washington Post'' this morning as saying that Democratic--the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people. Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Senator Inoue he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous--outrageous.
The president ought to apologize to Senator Inoue and every veteran who fought in every war who is a Democrat in the United States Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war in life and death.
I was in Normandy just last year. I've been in national cemeteries all over this country, and I have never seen anything but stars, the Star of David, and crosses on those markers. I have never seen Republican and Democrat.
This has got to end, Mr. President. We've got get on with the business of our country. We've got to rise to a higher level. Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We've got to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now.
So, Mr. President, it's not too late it end this politicization. It's not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are, and let's get this job done right, let's rise to the occasion. That's what American people are expecting. And we ought to give them no less.
I yield the floor.
Developing...
END
Only thing I have to say is STFU you stupid hypocrite....
-
Do you think Bush and Cheney are politicizing the war?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you think Bush and Cheney are politicizing the war?
No, I think they are trying to protect America and drum up support for something that almost EVERY Democrat supported just 2.5 years ago under Clinton's administration. Damazinhunk has been politicizing this for months now. On the week of Sept. 11 he was saying that congress needed to wait until after the mid-term elections before any action was taken - that's politicizing-
I for one have been sick of his toejam for years. Criticize and lie about the Republican agenda, but NEVER offer any solutions of his own. He'll criticize what they do then do nothing but block what they are trying to do, then at election time he'll say "they were do nothing Republicans" When HE is the one that offers nothing but lies and hypocritical criticization to what the President has to do.
The optomistic side of me thinks that this too will backfire in his face. Every time he steps up and criticizes the Bush administration it's been thrown back in his face, hopefuly the same will hold true this time. The political side of me can't blame him because the Democrats have NOTHING to offer right now. Other than block anything that the republicans or Bush try to do, when we're at war.....
so I say again to Damazinhunk, STFU you stupid hypocrite.....
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you think Bush and Cheney are politicizing the war?
does it matter?
how can both parties not be to some degree...
I have yet to find a democrat who stands beside/behind D-amazinhunk
I don't think he'll be making much noise after Nov
-
But in this case he's spot on.
"Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We've got to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now."
-
i thing saddam is on the bush payroll (or possibly bush is owned by saddam - havent figured that out yet) just like he was when he was Ford's CIA chief, when reagan was president & when daddy was president (thats right - officially saddam was tight w/ U.S. gov't right up until kuwait invasion). were i president i would love to have a distraction i could flip on like a light switch when ever the domestic news was going against me, or whenever my financial backers needed a bump in the oil markets (like right before an election, when campaigns need to be financed)
-
Originally posted by weazel
But in this case he's spot on.
"Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We've got to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now."
bunch of crap
-
Originally posted by Eagler
bunch of crap
bunch of crap
-
wow we all agree :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
bunch of crap
:)
-
Do you feel threatened by Saddam Hussein?
I certainly don't.
The U.S. has deterred far greater threats than some pissant despot in a pissant country.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Do you feel threatened by Saddam Hussein?
I certainly don't.
The U.S. has deterred far greater threats than some pissant despot in a pissant country.
well there's a lot of those pissants here in this country thanks to the last presidents open door policy w/ immigration (new dem votes ya know ;) ) There's a LOT of open border in our country. Saddam has a LOT of chem/bio weapons that we already know about.
You're damned right I feel threatened by him. You should too....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Do you feel threatened by Saddam Hussein?
I certainly don't.
The U.S. has deterred far greater threats than some pissant despot in a pissant country.
like who?
I'd say sadams hate for america and the bushs is enough to put him and by default his country at the top of the list
Did you feel "threatened" on 9/10/01? How about 9/12/01??
Sry, not in the wait and see group.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
like who?
The Soviet Union comes to mind... they had some capability with WMD.
-
Originally posted by Udie
well there's a lot of those pissants here in this country thanks to the last presidents open door policy w/ immigration (new dem votes ya know ;) ) There's a LOT of open border in our country. Saddam has a LOT of chem/bio weapons that we already know about.
You're damned right I feel threatened by him. You should too....
Why? Hussein doesn't have a death wish. He's been in office far too long for that. He knows that any attack, direct or indirect, against the U.S. (or Israel) will result in total destruction of his country.
Sorry... Hussein doesn't worry me in the least.
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/iraqi_mssl.gif)
-
I don't think Daschle knows a damn thing about our founding fathers, he should defininately pick up a history book and see how the politicians acted back then. The truth may surprise him.
-
(Sandman enters the Federal building where he works, sees someone has left a suitcase on the steps, just as he approaches it, a thought goes thru his mind..."What if Saddam hates us enough to manufacturer a small compact nuke that could be carried into the U.S.?"...just then, a blinding explosion, 100,000 are evaporated instantly, another 25,000 died the weeks later from radiation sickness, WW3 started because of the outcrys of liberals wanting to be isolationists just as we were in 1939....>
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(Sandman enters the Federal building where he works, sees someone has left a suitcase on the steps, just as he approaches it, a thought goes thru his mind..."What if Saddam hates us enough to manufacturer a small compact nuke that could be carried into the U.S.?"...just then, a blinding explosion, 100,000 are evaporated instantly, another 25,000 died the weeks later from radiation sickness, WW3 started because of the outcrys of liberals wanting to be isolationists just as we were in 1939....>
Followed shortly by the violent removal of one middle eastern country from the planet.
Like I said... Hussein isn't that stupid.
This "threat" is deterrable. It's not about isolationism. It's about the shift in policy from deterrance and containment to preemptive first strikes. It's a huge change.
-
Rip, that would be an incredibly stupid move on anyones part let alone Saddam and Iraq. What would they gain exept annihilation? Saddam has himself a sweet deal. Why would he throw it away?
I would be more concerned about Al Quiada or like minded folks getting WMD from other sources, like the old USSR. I guess we better attack them too.
:rolleyes:
And BTW, Daschle didn't say anything in the quote that I would disagree with.
-
How are you gonna trace that suitcase bomb?
Wasn't putting Westerners as "human shields" in front of military installations a stupid move? Wasn't igniting hundreds of oil wells with the intention of "making the world pay for infidels invading our land"? What makes you think this guy isn't ready to make a stupid move just so he gets paybacks? He's proven he's capable time and time again.
All I can say is this...you do nothing, YOU live with blood on your conscience...not me.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Followed shortly by the violent removal of one middle eastern country from the planet.
Like I said... Hussein isn't that stupid.
This "threat" is deterrable. It's not about isolationism. It's about the shift in policy from deterrance and containment to preemptive first strikes. It's a huge change.
do you think it'd be that obvious?
can anyone tell me where something as small as the west nile virus started?
how would anyone be able to tell anything unless they found an aerosol can the bio originated from stamped on the bottom "Made in Iraq"
and still the dems wouldn't believe ...... unless they had a dem in Whitehouse
:rolleyes:
weazel
please explain d-amazinhunk's 180 on Saddam since 98
does he believe he has become less dangerous since then? our buddy since 9/11 maybe??
politics ...plain and simple - the dumb&dumbercrats know if/when we invade and find wmd under their schools, in the palaces, etc .. they are stuck with the Republicans in charge of everything until 2008.
They are playing this card to their brain burnt supporters/voting base who can't remember what was said last week, let alone 4 years ago ... or those that can't comprehend economics beyond their next gov pay check
-
I'm a bit disappointed it took Al Gore to wake him up, actually. They've an opportunity to pull some moderate republicans over and are missing it due to a distinct lack of spine.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
do you think it'd be that obvious?
Seemed obvious enough the last time we got hit.
can anyone tell me where something as small as the west nile virus started? [/b]
Hardly justification for going after Iraq. Plenty of other countries have WMD programs.
how would anyone be able to tell anything unless they found an aerosol can the bio originated from stamped on the bottom "Made in Iraq"
[/b]
Were they not able to determine the origin of the antrax spores scattered about last year?
and still the dems wouldn't believe ...... unless they had a dem in Whitehouse [/b]
The Al-Queda threat was there, during the Clinton Administration. Clinton knew and so did Bush.
:rolleyes:
weazel
please explain d-amazinhunk's 180 on Saddam since 98
does he believe he has become less dangerous since then? our buddy since 9/11 maybe??
[/b]
Saddam was such a threat in 1991 that the U.N. sanctions called for his removal from Kuwait, but not a regime change.
politics ...plain and simple - the dumb&dumbercrats know if/when we invade and find wmd under their schools, in the palaces, etc .. they are stuck with the Republicans in charge of everything until 2008.
[/b]
Or worse... inspectors will find absolutely nothing and then realize that Bush is using the terror card for no other purpose than rallying votes and forwarding the republican agenda. Can't let the voting masses attention shift to domestic issues. Someone might get the impression that he's a poor leader.
They are playing this card to their brain burnt supporters/voting base who can't remember what was said last week, let alone 4 years ago ... or those that can't comprehend economics beyond their next gov pay check [/B]
-
I have not followed Daschle much as I basically dislike the look of him and Trent Lott for that matter. However it is apparent to me that he is just a spoiler type with no real ideas or leadership solutions of his own, he is just there to complain, criticize and hopefully drum up votes for his party. Frankly I dont even know why he is in government at all.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have not followed Daschle much as I basically dislike the look of him and Trent Lott for that matter. However it is apparent to me that he is just a spoiler type with no real ideas or leadership solutions of his own, he is just there to complain, criticize and hopefully drum up votes for his party. Frankly I dont even know why he is in government at all.
You just described 75% of the people in office. :D
-
Saddam was such a threat in 1998 that the U.N. sanctions called for his removal from Kuwait, but not a regime change.
don't think he was in Kuwait in 98 was he?
listen to your man dashole, his own words in 98 about the iraq "leader" and tell me why he has done a 180. what has changed?
9/11 for one. should be more of a reason, not less
politics, the dems are trying to get the latest batch of anti-everything (war today) hippy loving dead heads to vote their way. That's why he and goron are mentioning Iraq and "worse economy" in the same sentence out of different corners of their mouths. fried short term memory folks - the old farts that want free drugs or the young ones who do/have done too many
gotta be a moron to go along/agree with goron or this idiot
-
the democrats have not passed the homeland bill because "big labor" who controls the demos dosn't like some parts of the bill , big labor thinks some govt workers will lose their "no fire, garrenteed for life time govt jobs"
the house has passed the bill , the demo controled senate has sat on the bill for a year.
FYI , Daschle is running for pres in 2004 , thats why he has to make big noises, EI: "i fought for you in the senate , and i'll fight for you in the whitehouse, etc, etc"
PS, better update that map sandman , saddam now has 1000 mile range missles.
-
weazel
please explain d-amazinhunk's 180 on Saddam since 98
does he believe he has become less dangerous since then? our buddy since 9/11 maybe??
He's found a political "football" he thinks he can run with, it's no different than any *politician* republican...or democrat would do.
That doesn't mean there isn't truth in his words.
I love this country, I believe in the principles it was founded on, but frankly.....I'm also embarrased with the fact that our government (past and present)has perverted those ideas and principles to better serve themselves and their cronies than the people who they are supposed to be serving.....
"We the People" are not being served in the fashion envisioned by the founding fathers, and the current administration in effect is pissing on the graves of all who sacrificed for this nation.
I don't know about you but that upsets me, Daschle may be an amazinhunk...but in my mind these are the words of a patriot.....not "a bunch of crap".
"Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We've got to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now."
-
the words aren't crap but they have zero meaning coming out of dasholes mouth, he insults their meaning with his hypocritical political agenda
-
Thank God we live in a country with more than one political party. Thank God and our founding father’s for a system that let’s us debate!
God Bless America! A country free to debate without worry of gunman kicking downs our doors.
-
You tell Senator Inoue he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous--outrageous.
Men who wrap themselves up in the flag, make me raise an eyebrow. Men who wrap themselves up in the sacrifices of other men (combat veterans), are jack offs. Daschel falls into this category.
-
Well said Ezmo, well said.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Saddam was such a threat in 1998 that the U.N. sanctions called for his removal from Kuwait, but not a regime change.
don't think he was in Kuwait in 98 was he?
doh... I knew that... :)
-
Whatever the agenda, Daschle was wrong to say what he did (based as it was on a misquote from the Washington Post). Funny thing is he appears to be doing exactly what he is accusing the president of doing. Even funnier is how the administration offered a graceful way out for him, but he refuses.
-
OK, the administration wants war. Bush, of course 'has not made a decision', which is political-talk which roughly translated means 'I want to give the impression than I am open to suggestions but unless something huge comes out that might put me out of office, I won't change my mind'.
I mean, they talk together, Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush. It's near certain that they share the very same view on what needs to be done, only Bush has to word it a bit differently in order to keep a fire escape door open.
Be that as it may (notice that I haven't anything about whether a war against Iraq is a good or bad thing), we've seen quite a deal of argumentation about the reasons for the war. The Bush administrations as well as the Blair one has come up with some dossiers. While it is certainly frightening to read and very likely to be true, there's little hard evidence. What exists is indirect evidence.
Since we're now one big global community (eat THAT, anti-globalisation morons), this probably isn't enough if the war is to be said to be fought out of a need for 'international security' - I mean the world should be seen as one dude per country in a sort of weighted democratic system.
I say get some guns and planes down there, then get the inspectors in. If Saddam tries do do ANYTHING to stop the inspectors then turn his regime into a regime of very dry, dead men and his army into something assembling the one we have here in Denmark :D.
On the other hand, if it turns out that it's Bush holding his fathers grudge and regrets, then it's proper to stop at just killing off the regime. One country with an army like the one here is enough. Don't need two bad examples :D.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the democrats have not passed the homeland bill because "big labor" who controls the demos dosn't like some parts of the bill , big labor thinks some govt workers will lose their "no fire, garrenteed for life time govt jobs"...
'crats dont give half a turd about unions, (except to tap them for campaign cash) they've been screwing unions since the early '80s. that shi+ is about the federal buracracy (the unlegislated 4th branch) - all the little folk who do the work of g'ovt - vast majority so-called liberals (what self respecting so-called conservative would be a burecrat [except in law enforcement or Do'D] ?). if it was a real worker's union, 'crats would screw them in hopes of catching a few undecided centrist votes.
-
Eagler, you say a bit about meaning, have you read any Victor E Frankel?
Udie, I thought you had seen past party politics.
-
Originally posted by easymo
Men who wrap themselves up in the flag, make me raise an eyebrow. Men who wrap themselves up in the sacrifices of other men (combat veterans), are jack offs. Daschel falls into this category.
Was Daschel ever in the US armed forces?
-
uh.... yeah.
Democrats
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform, 1965-71
House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform, 1968-72
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform, 1969-72
Former Vice President Al Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71; recipient of Vietnam Service Medal
Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, Vietnam
Daniel Inouye... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, World War Two
John Kerry... Democrat...Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Charles Rangel...Democrat... Bronze Star, Korea
Max Cleland... Democrat... Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal.
Ambassador "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Democratic congressman, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: served in combat with the U.S. Army as a staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade; was wounded and received a Purple Heart.
Many others...
Republicans
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like [myself]."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.
GW Bush - AWOL from the reserves.
VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")
Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve
Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four student deferments
Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations
Don Nickles, Senate Minority Whip - Did not serve
Senator Richard Shelby, did not serve
Representative Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - did not serve
Many others...
Just sayin'... :P
(http://www.terra.com.mx/galeria_de_fotos/images/49/097221.jpg)
-
I still don't understand why the US are focused on Irak :confused: :confused:
...
9/11 was a saoudian attack no ?
Money and men where from Saoudia you know ....
-
This is by far the best quote from this thread:
All I can say is this...you do nothing, YOU live with blood on your conscience...not me.
So, Ripsnort, what are you going to do apart from sit on your arse and watch the fireworks on CNN? Come on here and brag extra hard about how you're flying you're extra snappy flag, pretending that doing so in some way supports 'our boys over there'?
You're killing me, you really are.
A pre-emptive attack is ludicrous. Get the inspectors in - like stsanta says - if they are obstructed in the slightest way, then attack. Job's a good 'un.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I still don't understand why the US are focused on Irak :confused: :confused:
...
9/11 was a saoudian attack no ?
Money and men where from Saoudia you know ....
It just has got to be true that Saddam Hussein is the absolute worst threat to mankind because the US govt and media say so.
(Hook, line, and sinker) Sad, really.
Notice now some reports that there might be a terror cell in Iran.
Hmmm I sense a pattern here.
After the US and England take over Iraq (installing our approved Iraqi 'Freedom and Liberty loving' Dictator), we'll go after Iran next. Why? Because Iran will then become the number one threat to world peace of freedom loving peoples everywhere! (It's just gotta be true I tell ya! Hook, line, and sinker.)
Hmmm, gotta love them oil profits!
I wonder how many US and English (possibly Canadian) lives will be lost in this next war? The many innocent civillians (I can bet much higher casualties than the servicemen) of the nations we'll be attacking? The only 'crime' those civilians are guilty of is living in those countries.
Want to see the sabre rattling by the US stop? Just give every policy making politician and their supporters a rifle and have them lead the charge into Iraq. Heck, I'd support that invasion with my tax dollars. ;)
Too many stupid, greedy people in important policy making decisions. Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy is not what we want for others, just ourselves. We want the right to go into other nations that we can bully around to do our bidding for our business interests. Not just limiting this to the present administration either.
-
First of all the UN is a disadvantage as well as an advantage in dealing with worldy matters. The UN itself as a whole has its own weaknesses and thus its own priorities and needs, naturally. The US uses it to aquire mandates to facilitate its own foreign policies that it sees is best towards long term national security. Dont tell me you have even a clue that is remotely near the truth. In the scale of things and analogy would be a ten year olds conclusion being held up to a in comparison to a babling 20 year olds better conclusion. I highly doubt that as most normal civilians know far from the truth of the nations steering system. I take what most people say and throw it all into the same basket of 2cent opinions next to the backet of 0 cent opinions. Give me a break, they (the leaders of this world) have just as much ability in screwing the future up as they do in making it better. Before you ask someone how they can support a war effort or troops overseas, have you asked yourself that same question?
Alot of people watch the news and form opinions, some stronger than others. Thats nothing special.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
A pre-emptive attack is ludicrous. Get the inspectors in - like stsanta says - if they are obstructed in the slightest way, then attack. Job's a good 'un.
never be a pe attack. only words to force bighead saddams hand. No one else in the world community seems to get a crap he's not sticking to his surrender words ... we didn't til we had an admin change & threw out the perv.
The US just ain't gonna wait on the UN to make something happen as they sat on their hands when they threw out the inspectors in 98. They've had 4 years to get them back in. Now we'll do it our way ....
-
Well eagler, looks like you got the ingredients for a perfect war. You woudlnt happen to be anywhere near Iraq when the bullets and bombs start going off will you? Whens the last time you got hurt, remember or even know whats its like to have an arm blown off. Its not your arm, is somebody elses. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet you will be glued to a TV set with a cold on in your hand. Too easy to back up that kinda crap.
BTW: Hope to meet you at a con in the future someday.
:)
-
Originally posted by senna
Well eagler, looks like you got the ingredients for a perfect war. You woudlnt happen to be anywhere near Iraq when the bullets and bombs start going off will you? Whens the last time you got hurt, remember or even know whats its like to have an arm blown off. Its not your arm, is somebody elses. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet you will be glued to a TV set with a cold on in your hand. Too easy to back up that kinda crap.
BTW: Hope to meet you at a con in the future someday.
:)
It'd be a cold ice tea - sry don't drink or smoke or chew :)
So you are for him NOT letting inspectors do their job?
Or not backing them up when they are refused entry somewhere in Iraq?
Or should we just go give saddam a big hug and welcome him into the world community?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by straffo
I still don't understand why the US are focused on Irak :confused: :confused:
...
9/11 was a saoudian attack no ?
Money and men where from Saoudia you know ....
Don’t start asking intelligent questions at this stage in the game!
It seems Saudi Arabia is hands-off for this administration. We can only imagine what sort of seedy deals go on behind closed doors.
As for Iraq, there are probably many reasons, oil, control of the region, help in the fall elections, Israeli influence, unfinished business from Gulf War, etc. But I think we choose Iraq because we can. The fascist element in this country are cowards and they’re not about to attack a country that can fight back. Do you think we’d attack China? I’m sure they qualify as terrorists under Bush’s guidelines. ;)
"Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that."
German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin
-
Inspectors Inschmectors, they are really just pawns. Its simply politics. If they can wage a low casualty war, they will, else they wont. Thats what I think. No presidency in this current day and age can afford a large casualty war. The cold war is over and that is ALOT different than the current situation. The stakes are much less and the people barely have the will to fight a real war.
:)
-
Just a FYI - England is a country within in the UK. The UK includes Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. There is no such thing as the English Army - it's the British Army and includes regiments from all 4 constituent nations.
As for Iraq. Blur is right - it is an easy target, relatively speaking. We know Syria sponsors terrorism and has WMD potential. Half of the unstable states in Africa harbour terrorists. Where is the support for an attack on Yemen, for instance?
-
Originally posted by blur
Don’t start asking intelligent questions at this stage in the game!
It seems Saudi Arabia is hands-off for this administration. We can only imagine what sort of seedy deals go on behind closed doors.
As for Iraq, there are probably many reasons, oil, control of the region, help in the fall elections, Israeli influence, unfinished business from Gulf War, etc. But I think we choose Iraq because we can. The fascist element in this country are cowards and they’re not about to attack a country that can fight back. Do you think we’d attack China? I’m sure they qualify as terrorists under Bush’s guidelines. ;)
"Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that."
German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin
blur
you have it all wrong, it's all about the grudge his dad has against saddam nothing about National security
:rolleyes:
-
I like the "it's easy to cry for war when it's not you going off to fight it!" And this may be the case with many folks. But I turned 18 during the Gulf War (Feb 26, just as they were wrapping things up on the ground In Kuwait) and I was about 100 times more supportive of the effort at that point in time, knowing that if there was a drawn out land war, I'd most likely be heading out over there. Maybe it was the bloodlust of youth. Maybe it was a more cut and dry case of "good vs evil" (at least in my mind). I don't know. But my personal experience contradicts the contention that "it's easier to support combat when you aren't going to be the one dying"
-Sikboy
-
I'm afraid I can't agree with a contention that states that only veterans have a voice in government or government affairs. I happened to turn 18 at a time when Carter had pretty much immasculated the military, and as far as opportunities for the future were concerned, there weren't a great deal on the horizon that included military involvemnt. So... I wound up in college instead. I don't apologize for that choice, it turned out to be the right one.
-
It turns out thet Daschle was upset not at what the President said, but at the words injected by a newpaper writer.
Dubya said the Senate was not concerned enough with national security, the reporter wrote "the Democratically Controlled Senate".
Just a little misunderstanding amongst friends.:rolleyes:
-
Unfortunately, that is not an uncommon occurance where the Washington Post is concerned.
-
(http://www.ilhawaii.net/~bear1/art/story.jpg)
-
is that suppose to be dashole in the lower right corner in the last frame of ur news mag 10bears?
no one has answered the question of why the 180 from 89 ....
I thought the radio was bad but watching dashole on the tele this am was too much. Looked like a bad SNL skit. what a joke
and he is the dems "leader" :rolleyes:
-
Hmm...I completely agree with Daschle. I cannot stand GW and I completely think he is tryin to politicize the war. Having said that, I also believe Hussein is a serious threat and should be dealt with immediately. I am just not happy with the methods of the President or his VP.
Preach on brother Daschle!!
Nim
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
(http://www.ilhawaii.net/~bear1/art/story.jpg)
Oh gawd... that's great. :D
-
W's got something for Saddam and the other terrorists, and that's some presidential kick-ass. He'll probably have some left over for senate wind bags too. :D
-
LOL
http://www.sanfranciscothuggirl.com/why_iraq.html (http://www.sanfranciscothuggirl.com/why_iraq.html)
-
Originally posted by senna
...As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet you will be glued to a TV set with a cold on in your hand...
that a "cold one" in his hand...the '___d on' will be in his other hand...LOL
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Or worse... inspectors will find absolutely nothing and then realize that Bush is using the terror card for no other purpose than rallying votes and forwarding the republican agenda......
Look.... http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/
And just to ward off those who inevitably whine about not getting the "good stuff", I have to say that the intelligence that is not released, is not released for good reason. I know there a LOTS of people that whine about not getting the inside scoop, however when capabilities, sources and especially lives could be at stake, sometimes you just have to trust the people who DO know.
More: http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960626/73885_01.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/971203_sites.htm
http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/Iraq's%20WMD%20Arsenal1.asp?from=pubtitle
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/leitenberg.html
Should we really wait and see?
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
LOL
http://www.sanfranciscothuggirl.com/why_iraq.html (http://www.sanfranciscothuggirl.com/why_iraq.html)
:)
-
(http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring01articles/spring01gifs/p15p1_600.gif)
So iffn' they wuz gunna 'splode wun a them thar "suitcase nukes" whar abouts on this-a-here map are da most likely places they wud put it?
I'm think those that don't think it's a threat would be severely corrected and those that think it is a threat probably wouldn't be near there.
;)
NOTE: This is an attempt at humor. This is only an attempt a humor. Nothing else should be assumed, construed, decided, inferred or determined fromt this. It is merely a tasteless joke. Go on with your life. Ok, it was a bad joke, I'm sorry.