salty blues
Active Member
Everyone please do not worry about all these wars and foreign affairs problems. Before long, the nineties will be back with Hillary & Bill in charge again. I'm sure they'll get it all smoothed out.
Bush ready to start WWIII
- Thread starter rudedog40
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Yea, they probably started the planning during Daddy's presidency, but executed it on Dubya's watch...
They started planning during Clinton's regime in 1998 (USA Today). Ironically the same year Clinton bombed Iraq to prevent their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs from developing... What a liar!!!
Yea, they probably started the planning during Daddy's presidency, but executed it on Dubya's watch...
They started planning during Clinton's regime in 1998 (USA Today). Ironically the same year Clinton bombed Iraq to prevent their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs from developing... What a liar!!!
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
. IMHO the same problems are arising with both and will from here on out in every endeavor because of.....MEDIA. ....
Agreed.
For whatever reason, the military decided to let the media start reporting from the front during Korea. We haven't fought a war the same since.
. IMHO the same problems are arising with both and will from here on out in every endeavor because of.....MEDIA. ....
Agreed.
For whatever reason, the military decided to let the media start reporting from the front during Korea. We haven't fought a war the same since.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Yea, they probably started the planning during Daddy's presidency, but executed it on Dubya's watch...
Oh my God. Are you serious?
Yea, they probably started the planning during Daddy's presidency, but executed it on Dubya's watch...
Oh my God. Are you serious?
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
Everyone please do not worry about all these wars and foreign affairs problems. Before long, the nineties will be back with Hillary & Bill in charge again. I'm sure they'll get it all smoothed out.
See....this one needs the sarcastic smarta** smiley behind it. Makes it more believable.
Everyone please do not worry about all these wars and foreign affairs problems. Before long, the nineties will be back with Hillary & Bill in charge again. I'm sure they'll get it all smoothed out.
See....this one needs the sarcastic smarta** smiley behind it. Makes it more believable.
rudedog40
Member
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.
I oppose the continuance of the Iraq War, because it should've never been the Iraq War. It was abundantly clear who caused 9/11 -- the Al Quaida faction that currently is being headed by Bin Laden. They knew this group existed in Afghanistan, and every American still seething from 9/11 had no problems with the troops going to AFGHANISTAN to rid this terrorist cell once and for all. In the mean time, Bush had some 'backdoor agenda' and a desire to get Sadaam out of control of Iraq. So he comes up with the WMD mantra, and some evidence that Sadaam helped Al Quaida financially and practically assisted Bin Laden in his escape. Now over 6 years later, we're no closer to finding Bin Laden, and instead, rebuilding some country we shouldn't have decimated in the first place. Bush is "doing what he says he's going to do" because he has no other choice. He reached the Point of No Return after invading Iraq. If he backed out now, he'd go down in history as the president who couldn't catch the perpetrators of 9/11, and starting a war everyone knew he could never win.
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.
I oppose the continuance of the Iraq War, because it should've never been the Iraq War. It was abundantly clear who caused 9/11 -- the Al Quaida faction that currently is being headed by Bin Laden. They knew this group existed in Afghanistan, and every American still seething from 9/11 had no problems with the troops going to AFGHANISTAN to rid this terrorist cell once and for all. In the mean time, Bush had some 'backdoor agenda' and a desire to get Sadaam out of control of Iraq. So he comes up with the WMD mantra, and some evidence that Sadaam helped Al Quaida financially and practically assisted Bin Laden in his escape. Now over 6 years later, we're no closer to finding Bin Laden, and instead, rebuilding some country we shouldn't have decimated in the first place. Bush is "doing what he says he's going to do" because he has no other choice. He reached the Point of No Return after invading Iraq. If he backed out now, he'd go down in history as the president who couldn't catch the perpetrators of 9/11, and starting a war everyone knew he could never win.
scsinet
Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
I oppose the continuance of the Iraq War, because it should've never been the Iraq War. It was abundantly clear who caused 9/11 -- the Al Quaida faction that currently is being headed by Bin Laden. They knew this group existed in Afghanistan, and every American still seething from 9/11 had no problems with the troops going to AFGHANISTAN to rid this terrorist cell once and for all. In the mean time, Bush had some 'backdoor agenda' and a desire to get Sadaam out of control of Iraq. So he comes up with the WMD mantra, and some evidence that Sadaam helped Al Quaida financially and practically assisted Bin Laden in his escape. Now over 6 years later, we're no closer to finding Bin Laden, and instead, rebuilding some country we shouldn't have decimated in the first place. Bush is "doing what he says he's going to do" because he has no other choice. He reached the Point of No Return after invading Iraq. If he backed out now, he'd go down in history as the president who couldn't catch the perpetrators of 9/11, and starting a war everyone knew he could never win.
Alright... fair enough. I do respect the desire to bring Americans home and out of harm's way. However, I have an analogy.
Let's say you are a police officer, named Officer Bush. You are responding to a bank robbery. You chase the robber into a dark alley, where you see a shadow moving towards you. You shoot, and down it goes.
When you approach, you find a completely different man bleeding badly in the street. Apparently, you shot the wrong guy.
Because you were chasing the bank robber, were your intentions good? I'm thinking yes, your intentions were good.
Because your intentions were good, was shooting the guy (who turned out to be wrong) justfied? I'm thinking maybe. You could have made sure it was the robber before you shot, or you could have felt your life was in danger and you had to shoot.
So you've got this guy bleeding in the street. What do you do, as Officer Bush?
Do you decide that because you shot the wrong guy, you just walk away and let him bleed to death in the street, or do you suck it up, accept the judgement of those who you must admit your mistake to, and the paperwork you have to fill out, and the possible loss of your career, and get the guy medical attention?
I'm not disagreeing that the war, in retrospect, was not the right thing to do. But I disagree that simply leaving (hence ending the continuance) is the right way to do it.
How will history judge the country who invaded another, then simply walked away and let that country be taken over by whatever Taliban-esque organization comes along?
I oppose the continuance of the Iraq War, because it should've never been the Iraq War. It was abundantly clear who caused 9/11 -- the Al Quaida faction that currently is being headed by Bin Laden. They knew this group existed in Afghanistan, and every American still seething from 9/11 had no problems with the troops going to AFGHANISTAN to rid this terrorist cell once and for all. In the mean time, Bush had some 'backdoor agenda' and a desire to get Sadaam out of control of Iraq. So he comes up with the WMD mantra, and some evidence that Sadaam helped Al Quaida financially and practically assisted Bin Laden in his escape. Now over 6 years later, we're no closer to finding Bin Laden, and instead, rebuilding some country we shouldn't have decimated in the first place. Bush is "doing what he says he's going to do" because he has no other choice. He reached the Point of No Return after invading Iraq. If he backed out now, he'd go down in history as the president who couldn't catch the perpetrators of 9/11, and starting a war everyone knew he could never win.
Alright... fair enough. I do respect the desire to bring Americans home and out of harm's way. However, I have an analogy.
Let's say you are a police officer, named Officer Bush. You are responding to a bank robbery. You chase the robber into a dark alley, where you see a shadow moving towards you. You shoot, and down it goes.
When you approach, you find a completely different man bleeding badly in the street. Apparently, you shot the wrong guy.
Because you were chasing the bank robber, were your intentions good? I'm thinking yes, your intentions were good.
Because your intentions were good, was shooting the guy (who turned out to be wrong) justfied? I'm thinking maybe. You could have made sure it was the robber before you shot, or you could have felt your life was in danger and you had to shoot.
So you've got this guy bleeding in the street. What do you do, as Officer Bush?
Do you decide that because you shot the wrong guy, you just walk away and let him bleed to death in the street, or do you suck it up, accept the judgement of those who you must admit your mistake to, and the paperwork you have to fill out, and the possible loss of your career, and get the guy medical attention?
I'm not disagreeing that the war, in retrospect, was not the right thing to do. But I disagree that simply leaving (hence ending the continuance) is the right way to do it.
How will history judge the country who invaded another, then simply walked away and let that country be taken over by whatever Taliban-esque organization comes along?
scsinet
Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
well heck if its printed in a national medium its the real deal isnt it???
Well that depends. Media is slanted in every which direction. Ultimately upon proper research and scruntinization, a conclusion may be reached... but what I was referring to was how people will blurt out with "well this probably happened" or "that probably happened... " if it came from national medium, then I wouldn't have expected "probably" in there.
well heck if its printed in a national medium its the real deal isnt it???
Well that depends. Media is slanted in every which direction. Ultimately upon proper research and scruntinization, a conclusion may be reached... but what I was referring to was how people will blurt out with "well this probably happened" or "that probably happened... " if it came from national medium, then I wouldn't have expected "probably" in there.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
I oppose the continuance of the Iraq War, because it should've never been the Iraq War. It was abundantly clear who caused 9/11 -- the Al Quaida faction that currently is being headed by Bin Laden. They knew this group existed in Afghanistan, and every American still seething from 9/11 had no problems with the troops going to AFGHANISTAN to rid this terrorist cell once and for all. In the mean time, Bush had some 'backdoor agenda' and a desire to get Sadaam out of control of Iraq. So he comes up with the WMD mantra, and some evidence that Sadaam helped Al Quaida financially and practically assisted Bin Laden in his escape. Now over 6 years later, we're no closer to finding Bin Laden, and instead, rebuilding some country we shouldn't have decimated in the first place. Bush is "doing what he says he's going to do" because he has no other choice. He reached the Point of No Return after invading Iraq. If he backed out now, he'd go down in history as the president who couldn't catch the perpetrators of 9/11, and starting a war everyone knew he could never win.
Backdoor agenda?? WMD mantra?? The whole planet, Bill Clinton, and Hussein himself said Iraq had WMD's and would readily use them. Saddam even used them in the past. I may be mistaken, but I do not remember AMERICA's argument into going into Iraq being soley as retribution for 9/11.
Please remember, AMERICA made the decision. Not simply GW Bush.
I oppose the continuance of the Iraq War, because it should've never been the Iraq War. It was abundantly clear who caused 9/11 -- the Al Quaida faction that currently is being headed by Bin Laden. They knew this group existed in Afghanistan, and every American still seething from 9/11 had no problems with the troops going to AFGHANISTAN to rid this terrorist cell once and for all. In the mean time, Bush had some 'backdoor agenda' and a desire to get Sadaam out of control of Iraq. So he comes up with the WMD mantra, and some evidence that Sadaam helped Al Quaida financially and practically assisted Bin Laden in his escape. Now over 6 years later, we're no closer to finding Bin Laden, and instead, rebuilding some country we shouldn't have decimated in the first place. Bush is "doing what he says he's going to do" because he has no other choice. He reached the Point of No Return after invading Iraq. If he backed out now, he'd go down in history as the president who couldn't catch the perpetrators of 9/11, and starting a war everyone knew he could never win.
Backdoor agenda?? WMD mantra?? The whole planet, Bill Clinton, and Hussein himself said Iraq had WMD's and would readily use them. Saddam even used them in the past. I may be mistaken, but I do not remember AMERICA's argument into going into Iraq being soley as retribution for 9/11.
Please remember, AMERICA made the decision. Not simply GW Bush.
rudedog40
Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Oh my God. Are you serious?
Uh, yea. Daddy served from '89 to '93. The first bombing of the WTC happened in '93. The faction that planned that bombing assisted in the training of the individuals who did the actual 9/11 planning, which did occur in the late 90's. So indirectly, Daddy had a hand in the 9/11 planning. You blame Clinton, but why didn't George Sr. squash it when he was president?
And who was president on 9-11-2001? WHY DUBYA OF COURSE!!!
Oh my God. Are you serious?
Uh, yea. Daddy served from '89 to '93. The first bombing of the WTC happened in '93. The faction that planned that bombing assisted in the training of the individuals who did the actual 9/11 planning, which did occur in the late 90's. So indirectly, Daddy had a hand in the 9/11 planning. You blame Clinton, but why didn't George Sr. squash it when he was president?
And who was president on 9-11-2001? WHY DUBYA OF COURSE!!!
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
well heck if its printed in a national medium its the real deal isnt it???
Sure, Paul McCartney died a long time ago.
SARS is going to kill 1/3 of the population
Bird Flu will get another 1/3
well heck if its printed in a national medium its the real deal isnt it???
Sure, Paul McCartney died a long time ago.
SARS is going to kill 1/3 of the population
Bird Flu will get another 1/3
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Uh, yea. Daddy served from '89 to '93. The first bombing of the WTC happened in '93. The faction that planned that bombing assisted in the training of the individuals who did the actual 9/11 planning, which did occur in the late 90's. So indirectly, Daddy had a hand in the 9/11 planning. You blame Clinton, but why didn't George Sr. squash it when he was president?
And who was president on 9-11-2001? WHY DUBYA OF COURSE!!!
Did you mean '88-'92??
Was Bin Laden handed to Daddy Bush on a silver platter several times? No.
Was Bin Laden handed to Bill Clinton on a silver platter several times? Yes.
Uh, yea. Daddy served from '89 to '93. The first bombing of the WTC happened in '93. The faction that planned that bombing assisted in the training of the individuals who did the actual 9/11 planning, which did occur in the late 90's. So indirectly, Daddy had a hand in the 9/11 planning. You blame Clinton, but why didn't George Sr. squash it when he was president?
And who was president on 9-11-2001? WHY DUBYA OF COURSE!!!
Did you mean '88-'92??
Was Bin Laden handed to Daddy Bush on a silver platter several times? No.
Was Bin Laden handed to Bill Clinton on a silver platter several times? Yes.
rudedog40
Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Backdoor agenda?? WMD mantra?? The whole planet, Bill Clinton, and Hussein himself said Iraq had WMD's and would readily use them. Saddam even used them in the past. I may be mistaken, but I do not remember AMERICA's argument into going into Iraq being soley as retribution for 9/11.
Please remember, AMERICA made the decision. Not simply GW Bush.
C'mon. Clinton knew about WMD's in Iraq? Saddam used nuclear devices? Now that one is news to me. Of course America's only reason for backing the war was for retribution of the 9/11 attack. We went over there for the Gulf War, didn't finish the job then, and came home. No one was screaming "WHY DID WE LEAVE!! GO BACK AND FINISH THE JOB!! KILL SADDAM BEFORE HE GOES NUCLEAR!" Most Americans could have cared less about Saddam. Sadaam was never mentioned right after 9/11 happened. The only names we heard were Al-Qaeda and Bin Ladin. Not until we missed Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, did we start hearing about Sadaam and his supposed ties to 9/11.
Backdoor agenda?? WMD mantra?? The whole planet, Bill Clinton, and Hussein himself said Iraq had WMD's and would readily use them. Saddam even used them in the past. I may be mistaken, but I do not remember AMERICA's argument into going into Iraq being soley as retribution for 9/11.
Please remember, AMERICA made the decision. Not simply GW Bush.
C'mon. Clinton knew about WMD's in Iraq? Saddam used nuclear devices? Now that one is news to me. Of course America's only reason for backing the war was for retribution of the 9/11 attack. We went over there for the Gulf War, didn't finish the job then, and came home. No one was screaming "WHY DID WE LEAVE!! GO BACK AND FINISH THE JOB!! KILL SADDAM BEFORE HE GOES NUCLEAR!" Most Americans could have cared less about Saddam. Sadaam was never mentioned right after 9/11 happened. The only names we heard were Al-Qaeda and Bin Ladin. Not until we missed Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, did we start hearing about Sadaam and his supposed ties to 9/11.
mfp1016
Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
Uh, yea. Daddy served from '89 to '93. The first bombing of the WTC happened in '93. The faction that planned that bombing assisted in the training of the individuals who did the actual 9/11 planning, which did occur in the late 90's. So indirectly, Daddy had a hand in the 9/11 planning. You blame Clinton, but why didn't George Sr. squash it when he was president?
And who was president on 9-11-2001? WHY DUBYA OF COURSE!!!
Oh man you're great, I never thought that discussing politics with someone who has never seen the news or read a newspaper would be interesting, kudos to you for showing me the impossible.
I hope this thread continues, its getting better by the page.
Uh, yea. Daddy served from '89 to '93. The first bombing of the WTC happened in '93. The faction that planned that bombing assisted in the training of the individuals who did the actual 9/11 planning, which did occur in the late 90's. So indirectly, Daddy had a hand in the 9/11 planning. You blame Clinton, but why didn't George Sr. squash it when he was president?
And who was president on 9-11-2001? WHY DUBYA OF COURSE!!!
Oh man you're great, I never thought that discussing politics with someone who has never seen the news or read a newspaper would be interesting, kudos to you for showing me the impossible.
I hope this thread continues, its getting better by the page.
mfp1016
Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Like threatening to eradicate a neighboring country, arming an insurgency and working at building nuclear weapons? Oh wait....
If you follow the news closely you will see Russia has quietly been re-emerging as a military power. Many of the hardliners in the Red Square are drooling over the thought of global dominance once again. Russia has been quietly (and not so quietly) arming Iran for years now. A quick look at a map shows why; With Afghanistan and Iraq out of the picture the best land route for the Soviets into the oil fields of the Middle East lies through Iran.
The cold war is not over. We arm our allies while Russia arms their's.
Journey, I was thinking about your statements today at work, and although I agree with you about Russia; I am not 100% sure the Saudis will always be able to appease the Wahai (sp?) and other extremists from overthrowing the Royals. The Royals have always done a good job at this, but its definitely a risk to arm SA. Perhaps, limitations of some sort.
Furthermore, I think we might as well be the ones who arm them, at least that way we will know what they have. They'll get it from someone, might as well be us.
Like threatening to eradicate a neighboring country, arming an insurgency and working at building nuclear weapons? Oh wait....
If you follow the news closely you will see Russia has quietly been re-emerging as a military power. Many of the hardliners in the Red Square are drooling over the thought of global dominance once again. Russia has been quietly (and not so quietly) arming Iran for years now. A quick look at a map shows why; With Afghanistan and Iraq out of the picture the best land route for the Soviets into the oil fields of the Middle East lies through Iran.
The cold war is not over. We arm our allies while Russia arms their's.
Journey, I was thinking about your statements today at work, and although I agree with you about Russia; I am not 100% sure the Saudis will always be able to appease the Wahai (sp?) and other extremists from overthrowing the Royals. The Royals have always done a good job at this, but its definitely a risk to arm SA. Perhaps, limitations of some sort.
Furthermore, I think we might as well be the ones who arm them, at least that way we will know what they have. They'll get it from someone, might as well be us.
mfp1016
Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
C'mon. Clinton knew about WMD's in Iraq? Saddam used nuclear devices? Now that one is news to me. Of course America's only reason for backing the war was for retribution of the 9/11 attack. We went over there for the Gulf War, didn't finish the job then, and came home. No one was screaming "WHY DID WE LEAVE!! GO BACK AND FINISH THE JOB!! KILL SADDAM BEFORE HE GOES NUCLEAR!" Most Americans could have cared less about Saddam. Sadaam was never mentioned right after 9/11 happened. The only names we heard were Al-Qaeda and Bin Ladin. Not until we missed Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, did we start hearing about Sadaam and his supposed ties to 9/11.
You should really read the news more. I personally like the BBC. I grew up overseas so I like the overview that the BBC gives, whereas American news I find more willing to explore redundancy before reporting on any number of international topics. CNN is ok, MSNBC, Fox are all biased but adequate news sources.
C'mon. Clinton knew about WMD's in Iraq? Saddam used nuclear devices? Now that one is news to me. Of course America's only reason for backing the war was for retribution of the 9/11 attack. We went over there for the Gulf War, didn't finish the job then, and came home. No one was screaming "WHY DID WE LEAVE!! GO BACK AND FINISH THE JOB!! KILL SADDAM BEFORE HE GOES NUCLEAR!" Most Americans could have cared less about Saddam. Sadaam was never mentioned right after 9/11 happened. The only names we heard were Al-Qaeda and Bin Ladin. Not until we missed Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, did we start hearing about Sadaam and his supposed ties to 9/11.
You should really read the news more. I personally like the BBC. I grew up overseas so I like the overview that the BBC gives, whereas American news I find more willing to explore redundancy before reporting on any number of international topics. CNN is ok, MSNBC, Fox are all biased but adequate news sources.