Bush ready to start WWIII

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
You mean Don LaFontaine.
You had me for the first paragraph.

... and should those poopy pants' at the oil companies receive record profits due to record consumption, don't worry. The Democratic government will institute a "windfall tax" (also known as colossal-success-grab). What will the oil companies do? Pass those that additional operating overhead back to us as higher prices? NO! They'll BE SORRY and LOWER PRICES That's what they'll do!
Logic at it's best!
Yep, that's the guy.
Looks like you need the sarcastic smiley also.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
If heightened security is the answer why didn't the Clinton Admin raise security? Why did we needlessly suffer multiple attacks?

"We didn't get attacked by those people....Al Queda."

 

[ruaround]

dont over look the fact that China is building a Navy that will surpass our Navy in the next 3 years... and anyone who knows anything about war will say that you cant win a war without the strongest Navy...
GW thinks war is the answer and its what the US citizens wants and needs...
i cant wait for election 08!!!

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by ruaround
dont over look the fact that China is building a Navy that will surpass our Navy in the next 3 years... and anyone who knows anything about war will say that you cant win a war without the strongest Navy...
GW thinks war is the answer and its what the US citizens wants and needs...
i cant wait for election 08!!!
Didn't realize China was focusing on a navy, but they need one if they plan on transporting such a large army.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by ruaround
...
i cant wait for election 08!!!
You looking forward to:
higher taxes
waiting lines at your dr.
more terrorist attacks on our homeland
judges who haven't read the Constitution
Which of these things appeals to you?

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
They hit us how many times under Clinton yet they haven't figured out how to hit us in the last 7 years?
I'm not buying that.

Yes journey, I know you hate Bill Clinton.
But at least when he was president, we didn't lose over 2500 American citizens on our own soil, and have major structures that were considered a symbol to the power and success of this country turned to rubble, unlike your president that you so dearly love.
Again, if you think another terroristic attack will never occur on American soil, you're living in a fantasy world. How many years did it take Bin Laden's organization to plan 9/11? You think he did that overnight? Yes, our initial strike in Afghanistan slowed him down, but Duyba's Warriors have been over there how many year's, and still can't find the guy? If he wants to catch the guy, why did he leave Afghanistan in the first place? Oh that's right, Sadaam was the true terrorists behind 9/11. Jesus, Bush himself admits there is a high probability he could strike again. That's why he keeps insisting we stay over there.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Yes journey, I know you hate Bill Clinton.
But at least when he was president, we didn't lose over 2500 American citizens on our own soil, and have major structures that were considered a symbol to the power and success of this country turned to rubble, unlike your president that you so dearly love.
Again, if you think another terroristic attack will never occur on American soil, you're living in a fantasy world. How many years did it take Bin Laden's organization to plan 9/11? You think he did that overnight? Yes, our initial strike in Afghanistan slowed him down, but Duyba's Warriors have been over there how many year's, and still can't find the guy? If he wants to catch the guy, why did he leave Afghanistan in the first place? Oh that's right, Sadaam was the true terrorists behind 9/11. Jesus, Bush himself admits there is a high probability he could strike again. That's why he keeps insisting we stay over there.
Wow. You contradicted your own argument big time.
By your account, it was GW's fault for 9/11. But it took years to plan it? Care to review the timeline?

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You looking forward to:
higher taxes
waiting lines at your dr.
more terrorist attacks on our homeland
judges who haven't read the Constitution
Which of these things appeals to you?

ohhh the world according to 1journey...

i never said what party i was going for... just implying that it will be nice to have good ole GDub outta here FOR GOOD!!! unless he finds someway to manipulate congress into passing another term for the president... which i really wouldnt put it past him to try...

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You looking forward to:
higher taxes
waiting lines at your dr.
more terrorist attacks on our homeland
judges who haven't read the Constitution
Which of these things appeals to you?

We lived through Bush, I'm sure the next 8 years can't be any worse.
But I think all of those statements are a little extreme and the worst case scenario, which I'm sure it's not going to be that bad.

 

[scsinet]

What I find interesting is that back when we were first looking at invading Iraq, I was hard pressed (in fact I don't recall ever) to find a person who was against the war. We were an angry, bloodthirsty populace at that time, still angry over 9/11, still wanting somebody to pay.
Now that the war is unpopular, so many people are crawling out of the woodwork proclaiming themselves to be steadfast and from-the-get-go opponents of the war. While I believe that some were... I doubt most were.
Knowing what we know now about the war in Iraq, would I support the war today? No. But at the same time, I cannot justify the idea of cutting and running, and leaving a country we basically destroyed to deal with itself. I supported the invasion, and I believe that even though you bring troops home, save money, etc by leaving, I supported making the mess so I must support cleaning it up.
Sure, there are those who say that Bush lied to us about it... but somehow congress, who had the same evidence that Bush did at the time supported it, including the Hildabeast. I find it hard to believe that Bush would be able to mastermind such an extensive and complex fabrication of evidence yet nobody can produce a single shred of proof that it happened.
I supported the invasion 100% and proudly helped to re-elect Bush in 2004, something I am still proud of - because I have immense respect for someone who does what he says he's going to do, even it makes him unpopular. I no longer think the war was a good idea, but I support finishing what we started. Again, we, not he. True fortitude is the strength to finish what we start.
By the way... I don't recall any other wars he has started other than the war on terror.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha

We lived through Bush, I'm sure the next 8 years can't be any worse.
But I think all of those statements are a little extreme and the worst case scenario, which I'm sure it's not going to be that bad.
I agree that we need a chance in office. It's time, and even given what I just said, I wouldn't re-elect him at this point even if there were no term limits because his endeavor has carried the unfortunate, yet inevitable side effect of tremendously reduced diplomatic capital.
It's time for a change, someone who will bring in new ideas. Yet I say that change does not have to be left-wing change, for a whole host of other reasons. And I will not support anyone, on either side, who thinks that "cutting and running" is a fresh idea, rather than what it in fact is... pandering and cowardice.

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
What I find interesting is that back when we were first looking at invading Iraq, I was hard pressed (in fact I don't recall ever) to find a person who was against the war. We were an angry, bloodthirsty populace at that time, still angry over 9/11, still wanting somebody to pay.
Now that the war is unpopular, so many people are crawling out of the woodwork proclaiming themselves to be steadfast and from-the-get-go opponents of the war. While I believe that some were... I doubt most were.
Knowing what we know now about the war in Iraq, would I support the war today? No. But at the same time, I cannot justify the idea of cutting and running, and leaving a country we basically destroyed to deal with itself. I supported the invasion, and I believe that even though you bring troops home, save money, etc by leaving, I supported making the mess so I must support cleaning it up.
Sure, there are those who say that Bush lied to us about it... but somehow congress, who had the same evidence that Bush did at the time supported it, including the Hildabeast. I find it hard to believe that Bush would be able to mastermind such an extensive and complex fabrication of evidence yet nobody can produce a single shred of proof that it happened.
I supported the invasion 100% and proudly helped to re-elect Bush in 2004, something I am still proud of - because I have immense respect for someone who does what he says he's going to do, even it makes him unpopular. I no longer think the war was a good idea, but I support finishing what we started. Again, we, not he. True fortitude is the strength to finish what we start.
By the way... I don't recall any other wars he has started other than the war on terror.
its not so much the "war" itself... its the results... or lack there of in a timely manner...
now start in with the "who says war has a time line" bit...

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by ruaround
its not so much the "war" itself... its the results... or lack there of in a timely manner...
now start in with the "who says war has a time line" bit...

What results were you expecting??

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by ruaround
its not so much the "war" itself... its the results... or lack there of in a timely manner...
now start in with the "who says war has a time line" bit...
Actually, I won't give you the timeline bit.
I, as well as many others, possibly or not possibly including the president and congress, failed to properly understand a few things going in...
A) the commitment and resolve of the enemy
B) the tactical advantage of an entrenched local populace
C) the nature of fighting conventionally against those who fight terroristically
D) the assumption that these people wanted Saddam toppled
E) the typical self centered, arrogant idea that everyone else in the world wants to be like us.
IMO, if Bush can be blamed for anything, it's selling the war to Americans as a walk in the park... over in no time, a selling point which he obviously believed himself with his little PR stunt on the aircraft carrier. It's a moot point nonetheless, because it was up to people we already elected to authorize the war... which they did.
But it's the last item on my list that I personally have grown to believe was our biggest downfall. You wonder why everyone in the country hates us... it's this kind of attitude... "Oh sure, we'll invade Iraq... and they'll welcome us with open arms, as well as the idea to establish the country as a Constitutional Republic."
So back to the point... no, I'm not about to claim that war has no timeline... but I will say that it's a tactical error to reveal to the enemy exactly how long you'll give it before you'll give up.

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
What results were you expecting??
a dead laden!!! and a message that we will hunt you down and get rid of you before you even have a chance to think about it...

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by ruaround
a dead laden!!! and a message that we will hunt you down and get rid of you before you even have a chance to think about it...
That certainly would have been nice.
However, Al Quaeda is bigger than one man. Even if we killed him, unless we knock out the rest of Al Quaeda's infrastructure, it wouldn't have made a difference.
It wasn't Bin Laden individually. It was one man, allowed to build an organization large enough to organize terror attacks on the unprecendented scale that they did. Bush is not to blame for letting Al Quaeda build to that level without taking action.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Wow. You contradicted your own argument big time.
By your account, it was GW's fault for 9/11. But it took years to plan it? Care to review the timeline?
Yea, they probably started the planning during Daddy's presidency, but executed it on Dubya's watch...

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
Actually, I won't give you the timeline bit.
I, as well as many others, possibly or not possibly including the president and congress, failed to properly understand a few things going in...
A) the commitment and resolve of the enemy
B) the tactical advantage of an entrenched local populace
C) the nature of fighting conventionally against those who fight terroristically
D) the assumption that these people wanted Saddam toppled
E) the typical self centered, arrogant idea that everyone else in the world wants to be like us.
IMO, if Bush can be blamed for anything, it's selling the war to Americans as a walk in the park... over in no time, a selling point which he obviously believed himself with his little PR stunt on the aircraft carrier. It's a moot point nonetheless, because it was up to people we already elected to authorize the war... which they did.
But it's the last item on my list that I personally have grown to believe was our biggest downfall. You wonder why everyone in the country hates us... it's this kind of attitude... "Oh sure, we'll invade Iraq... and they'll welcome us with open arms, as well as the idea to establish the country as a Constitutional Republic."
So back to the point... no, I'm not about to claim that war has no timeline... but I will say that it's a tactical error to reveal to the enemy exactly how long you'll give it before you'll give up.
agreed... but his speeches went from we will hunt em down and find them to i am happy that the US citizens are patient... very very patient...
all this from one that said: "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here."
and "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
That certainly would have been nice.
However, Al Quaeda is bigger than one man. Even if we killed him, unless we knock out the rest of Al Quaeda's infrastructure, it wouldn't have made a difference.
It wasn't Bin Laden individually. It was one man, allowed to build an organization large enough to organize terror attacks on the unprecendented scale that they did. Bush is not to blame for letting Al Quaeda build to that level without taking action.
organizations arent like trees... just cuz you take out the bottom doesnt mean the rest will fall... yet start choppin at the top and soon enough your to a stump...

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
Actually, I won't give you the timeline bit.
I, as well as many others, possibly or not possibly including the president and congress, failed to properly understand a few things going in...
A) the commitment and resolve of the enemy
B) the tactical advantage of an entrenched local populace
C) the nature of fighting conventionally against those who fight terroristically
D) the assumption that these people wanted Saddam toppled
E) the typical self centered, arrogant idea that everyone else in the world wants to be like us.
IMO, if Bush can be blamed for anything, it's selling the war to Americans as a walk in the park... over in no time, a selling point which he obviously believed himself with his little PR stunt on the aircraft carrier. It's a moot point nonetheless, because it was up to people we already elected to authorize the war... which they did.
But it's the last item on my list that I personally have grown to believe was our biggest downfall. You wonder why everyone in the country hates us... it's this kind of attitude... "Oh sure, we'll invade Iraq... and they'll welcome us with open arms, as well as the idea to establish the country as a Constitutional Republic."
So back to the point... no, I'm not about to claim that war has no timeline... but I will say that it's a tactical error to reveal to the enemy exactly how long you'll give it before you'll give up.
A through E should have been obvious. There was another unfavorable war in the 60's that fell along those same lines. IMHO the same problems are arising with both and will from here on out in every endeavor because of.....MEDIA.
Some things, we really don't need to know. Like somehow every other war in history was "Politically Correct" and all participants were gentlemen. Politically oriented media grabs on to something like Abu Ghraib (sp) and treats it like someone blew up a School bus full of children. Oh snap, my mistake. The kids wouldn't get 1/20th of the airplay.