Bush ready to start WWIII

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
Actually I think he's right about the dates... the election would have been in '88 and HW would have taken office in late January, '89, leaving in late January '93 to be replaced by Slick Willie.
Reagan was the lame duck from Nov '88 - Jan '89.
Yeah, but vote is in November eh? Kinda like Superbowl is in January, it's still cosidered as from the previous year.

 

[stdreb27]

lol I really hope that some of the posts on here are just to jerk some chains.
It does confound me the lack of objective thought in the matter. Seriously, who can honestly argue that Bush made up the WMD's? Sure if your some uber left wing liberal, and lacking the ability to tell the truth, I could see you saying that, but surely you don't believe it. Or to say that the first WTC attack happened on Bush's watch?
Then the false assumption that all was good in Iraq before the EVIL americans came in and ruined it. How many mass graves do they have to dig up in Iraq before people realise that there was some ---- hitting the fan in that desert.
To me this is unbelievable. I just don't understand. What is so wrong in believing in American Exceptionalism? What is so wrong in stopping a dictator who was murdering his own people, raping them, torturing them, using chemical weapons on them? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[groupergenius]

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.
Do a little googling. This took me all of 2 seconds. There are tons like this if you look. Is CNN credible enough??
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Do a little googling. This took me all of 2 seconds. There are tons like this if you look. Is CNN credible enough??
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
But "Bush had some 'backdoor agenda' and a desire to get Sadaam out of control of Iraq. So he comes up with the WMD mantra..."

 

[1journeyman]

Nice to see the banner being carried tonight while I was away...
Rudedog, once again you're trying to argue both sides. Otoh you want to blame Pres. Bush Jr. for 9-11, then on the other hand you want to blame Pres Bush Sr. for the first attack... How does that work exactly? The first Pres. is responsible for the planning of the first attack, but the second Pres Bush is responsible since the attack took place in his watch? Kind of got a double standard going there. Plus you're totally ignoring the fact that evidence points to the fact that Al Qaeda began planning 9-11 in 1998 (see my earlier post from USAToday)
Critics of the war in Iraq forget that Saddam brought it solely on himself. He routinely targeted and fired upon Allied pilots enforcing the No Fly Zones, he defied SEVENTEEN UN resolutions, and he was warned for SIX months to let the inspectors have free access or we were coming in...
Critics also conveniently forget that every major intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had chemical and biological weapons (Russia, China, Israel, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain, etc...).
Finally, critics forget what the leading democrats were saying about Saddam's weapons programs. Here's a quick refresher:
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Senator Hillary Clinton during an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather September 13, 2001.
Funny that Saddam was proven to be funding terrorists...
How about these gems from President Clinton:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Feb. 17, 1998
Or how about a quote talking about how dangerous Saddam is to us, waaaay over there...
"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
How about our now beloved Speaker of the House?
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
The list goes on and on...
Here's what I don't understand: Those that hate President Bush are convinced he's an idiot; yet they attribute the greatest conspiracy ever known in the history of mankind to him. Somehow the then Governor of Texas brainwashed the leaders of the world, their intelligence agencies, as well as the leading Democrats and President Clinton that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He did this, of course, just so that he could someday become President and invade Iraq himself...

 

[reefraff]

Some people here need to do a little research and fact checking before posting.

 

[cowfishrule]

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 love when i find people that get the point

 

[cowfishrule]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Was Bin Laden handed to Bill Clinton on a silver platter several times? Yes.
it was either 8 or 10 times, and he brushed off all of them. too busy with monica.

 

[cowfishrule]

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
ahh, the democrats

lets not forget swept-under-the-rug corruption that you wont hear or see anywhere on the news (except fox news and various online sites)

 

[rudedog40]

Hey, you guys have your war, go fight it. It's laughable you rely on comments from sources that are most likely skewed in favor of whoever they support. Who here constantly complains about Fox News continually blasting one side over the other. Yes, I do READ the paper every day. I don't trust half the online medium, and lately can't trust what's written in the paper. What it boils down to, is neither me, you, or anyone else actually knows what happened in the back doors of Clinton or Bushes 'War Rooms', and how they determined whether to attack Iraq. Were you pro-war fanatics so voiceful during the Gulf War? Were you screaming "Why did we leave?" Were you upset when we pulled out of Kuwait, with thousands of people murdered, hundreds of oil fields still burning, and Sadaam taunting the US with a "Come and get me losers" attitude? Nobody in America cared what was happening in Iraq after that. Not until 9/11.
I never said I blamed Dubya or his daddy for either of the attacks on the WTC. You people are the one's who say Clinton didn't do anything to keep 9/11 from happening. Well guess what, obviously neither of the Bushes did either. You think the terrorists that tried blowing up the WTC back in '93 had no affiliation with the one's who successfully took them down in 2001? You don't think Bush Sr. didn't know about terrorist during his term that could do something so devastating as 9/11? OK, so a majority of the 9/11 planning occurred during Clinton's term (Guess what? I looked online and found the timeline!). He was a lame duck come 1999. So just because Bush was in office for just a year and a half, gives him a 'Get Out OF Jail Free' card for what happened on 9/11?
You keep missing the point on the WMD issue. One of Bushes main selling points to invade Iraq was so that the US could finally insure Sadaam could never use WMD's against anyone. Bush supposedly had numerous reports he had WMDs. Most of Congress relied on these reports to make their decision to go to war. So they agreed, and we went in. Six years later, WMD's have still not been found in Iraq. Where did they go? Did Sadaam have some fleet of aircraft to jet them off to some Afghanistan or Palestinian hiding place right before we did the first Bagdhad bombing?
Pro-War fanatics like you are VERY scary people. You justify war by using scare tactics that if we don't continue the fight, the enemy will be at our back door tomorrow. What's laughable is, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE. You have these blinders on with this thinking that terrorists only exist in Iraq or in the Middle East. Our borders are practically wide open, with thousands of illegal immigrants coming into the US everyday. You don't think for one second that any of the illegals could be Al-Qaeda operatives? At any moment, you're prepared to 'pull the trigger' on any country that may have an agenda against the US. I still don't understand why you think the US should be the Big Brother and Protector of the Free World. Who gave us the right to do that? This country is about to fall into another Recession (if it hasn't already started). People are losing jobs left and right, the stock market is tanking, and the economy is going down the tubes. Yet, you want to filter billions of US dollars to a country we blew the crap out of just to get rid of one man. "It's the honorable thing to do. We caused the devastation, we need to clean up our mess

" You don't think the cost of the war isn't affecting our economy? We're basically stuck in Iraq for at least another 5 years because the pro-war conservatives don't want to 'cut and run'. But just as we get finished with Iraq, we'll get sucked into Iran becuase it's another 'war on terror', and the US - World Protector of Terror has to put on their blue suit and red cape, swoop in yelling "Her We Come To Save The Daaay..." So as I said at the beginning of this statement, you want to fight the war, go do it. Don't sit here and talk the talk. Get your clearance, join the military, and head East. Dubya will be proud of you.

 

[cowfishrule]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Six years later, WMD's have still not been found in Iraq. Where did they go?
Syria

 

[reefraff]

Well who put the knot in our panties this morning

(insert Church Lady voice)

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
It's laughable you rely on comments from sources that are most likely skewed in favor of whoever they support.
I think it's safe to say that we all do this from time to time, on both sides.
What it boils down to, is neither me, you, or anyone else actually knows what happened in the back doors of Clinton or Bushes 'War Rooms', and how they determined whether to attack Iraq.
Exactly. But therefore it's just as inappropriate to say that we should leave as it is to say we should stay, based on knowledge you admit we as ordinary schmos don't have.
You keep missing the point on the WMD issue. One of Bushes main selling points to invade Iraq was so that the US could finally insure Sadaam could never use WMD's against anyone.
Mission accomplished.
Bush supposedly had numerous reports he had WMDs. Most of Congress relied on these reports to make their decision to go to war. So they agreed, and we went in. Six years later, WMD's have still not been found in Iraq.
And who is to blame for this? Bush individually? Uhhh... no. All Bush did is PROPOSE THE WAR. CONGRESS APPROVED IT. Our elected representatives, who should be smart enough to see through the chicanery that Bush suppsedly used, approved it. That means either A) the evidence was compelling enough to move them to action; or B) they were too stupid to see what was going on. Either way, these people who somehow have come out unscathed and blameless from what many are insinuating is the greatest consipracy in the history of mankind are now RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, mincing words and dancing around the subject, being ushered in by the same people who want to impeach the president for acting on a decision they made.
Nice.
What's laughable is, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE. You have these blinders on with this thinking that terrorists only exist in Iraq or in the Middle East.
Yep... and the guy next door to me may be a murderer. Of course, we won't know that until he murders someone and gets caught. Since you can't bust him until he does, then why bother making murder a crime at all?
At any moment, you're prepared to 'pull the trigger' on any country that may have an agenda against the US.
Absolutely. We must fight to protect that which we as Americans cherish the most. Life, Liberty, Property. Those who would threaten to destroy that should be fought using whatever force is required to stop it.
I still don't understand why you think the US should be the Big Brother and Protector of the Free World. Who gave us the right to do that? This country is about to fall into another Recession (if it hasn't already started). People are losing jobs left and right, the stock market is tanking, and the economy is going down the tubes. Yet, you want to filter billions of US dollars to a country we blew the crap out of just to get rid of one man. "It's the honorable thing to do. We caused the devastation, we need to clean up our mess

" You don't think the cost of the war isn't affecting our economy?
That's nice. "Yep, we blew the hell out of them, but now cable TV costs too much, so you're on your own!"
Sorry, that's not responsibility.
Oh, and we didn't eliminate a man. We eliminated a regime, and at the very least disrupted the operations of a major terrorist organization that commited numerous atrocities around the world.
You argue both sides again... on the one hand, you call us to task on the ethics of going to war as a self-proclaimed "protector of the free world" but on the other hand you advocate leaving a country that's in the crapper without bothering to reconstruct the war or finish the job, becuase our economy is less than optimal. Where are your ethics of war then?
We're basically stuck in Iraq for at least another 5 years because the pro-war conservatives don't want to 'cut and run'. But just as we get finished with Iraq, we'll get sucked into Iran becuase it's another 'war on terror', and the US - World Protector of Terror has to put on their blue suit and red cape, swoop in yelling "Her We Come To Save The Daaay..." So as I said at the beginning of this statement, you want to fight the war, go do it. Don't sit here and talk the talk. Get your clearance, join the military, and head East. Dubya will be proud of you.
I love how we have to join the military to support our country and it's ideals.
Let's turn it around.
If you don't like it, move to Canada. Such a remark is just as asenine.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
If you don't like it, move to Canada. Such a remark is just as asenine.
Better yet, move to Iran.

 

[rudedog40]

And who is to blame for this? Bush individually? Uhhh... no. All Bush did is PROPOSE THE WAR. CONGRESS APPROVED IT. Our elected representatives, who should be smart enough to see through the chicanery that Bush suppsedly used, approved it. That means either A) the evidence was compelling enough to move them to action; or B) they were too stupid to see what was going on. Either way, these people who somehow have come out unscathed and blameless from what many are insinuating is the greatest consipracy in the history of mankind are now RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, mincing words and dancing around the subject, being ushered in by the same people who want to impeach the president for acting on a decision they made. Nice.
Who was the majority party in Congress when the 'vote' was going on. REPUBLICAN. You think they're going to vote against their party lines? Sure the Democrats followed suit, what choice did they have? If you were in Congress at that time, would you want to vote against a war that was promoted as a retaliation to 9/11? Not if you didn't want to stay there.
That's nice. "Yep, we blew the hell out of them, but now cable TV costs too much, so you're on your own!"
Sorry, that's not responsibility.
So millions of Americans have to file bankruptcy because you feel guilty for not being "Resonsible"?
Oh, and we didn't eliminate a man. We eliminated a regime, and at the very least disrupted the operations of a major terrorist organization that commited numerous atrocities around the world.
The basis of everyone's argument for the Iraq War here is because we went into Iraq to get Sadaam, and his threat of WMD's. As far as the regimes, we'll never get rid of those. The fight in Iraq is over control of territory now. It has nothing to do with terror. Bush wants to push Democracy down their throats, and there's too many dissident factions that don't want to have anything to do with it (Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, etc.). We're nothing more than policemen trying to make gangs get along and work together. Meanwhile, we're practically doing nothing in Afghanistan to find the people who actually did implement 9/11.
You argue both sides again... on the one hand, you call us to task on the ethics of going to war as a self-proclaimed "protector of the free world" but on the other hand you advocate leaving a country that's in the crapper without bothering to reconstruct the war or finish the job, becuase our economy is less than optimal. Where are your ethics of war then?
Excuse me? How am I arguing both sides? I have no ethics on war. I didn't want to go there in the first place. I'm saying the US shouldn't be sticking their nose into every world conflict. And you bet I could care less about how we leave Iraq. Those people have their own way of life. It's 180 from ours. You have these illusions of grandeur that Iraquis will be able to go to their local shopping malls, eat McDonalds, and sip on Starbucks after we help them 'rebuild'. We'll spend billions on repairing their infrastructure, and within 5 years, it'll either be trashed, or blown up by some other tribal conflict. That how it is over there. That region of the MidEast will NEVER be what you visualize it to be, not matter how much you put into it.
I love how we have to join the military to support our country and it's ideals.
Let's turn it around.
If you don't like it, move to Canada. Such a remark is just as asenine.
No, you want to be Armchair Quarterbacks and chatise anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints on this useless conflict -- "Not supporting the war is UnAmerican. Don't like it? Move out of here Commie!" Go look at past polls. Until recently, the majority of Americans were against the war. Now their displeasure has shifted to the economy. Why has Bushes approval rating been one of the lowest of any of the last three presidents? I suppose you'll say it has nothing to do with the war.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
...
You keep missing the point on the WMD issue. One of Bushes main selling points to invade Iraq was so that the US could finally insure Sadaam could never use WMD's against anyone. Bush supposedly had numerous reports he had WMDs. Most of Congress relied on these reports to make their decision to go to war. So they agreed, and we went in. Six years later, WMD's have still not been found in Iraq. Where did they go? ....
Pro-War fanatics like you are VERY scary people. You justify war by using scare tactics that if we don't continue the fight, the enemy will be at our back door tomorrow. What's laughable is, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE. .....
You're missing the point on the WMD's. Many of those reports President Bush had came from President Clinton... How can you ignore that?
You accuse the "pro=war" crowd of scare tactics, yet then say "THE'RE ALREADY HERE". That's silly. Bin Laden has repeatedly called for attacks against the USA. What, did the terror cells fall asleep? They on vacation?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
...
Who was the majority party in Congress when the 'vote' was going on. REPUBLICAN. You think they're going to vote against their party lines? Sure the Democrats followed suit, what choice did they have? If you were in Congress at that time, would you want to vote against a war that was promoted as a retaliation to 9/11? Not if you didn't want to stay there.
...
The basis of everyone's argument for the Iraq War here is because we went into Iraq to get Sadaam, and his threat of WMD's. As far as the regimes, we'll never get rid of those. The fight in Iraq is over control of territory now. It has nothing to do with terror. Bush wants to push Democracy down their throats, and there's too many dissident factions that don't want to have anything to do with it (Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, etc.). We're nothing more than policemen trying to make gangs get along and work together. Meanwhile, we're practically doing nothing in Afghanistan to find the people who actually did implement 9/11.
... Why has Bushes approval rating been one of the lowest of any of the last three presidents? I suppose you'll say it has nothing to do with the war.[/B]
So you're saying the Democrats, who said Saddam had WMD's, get a pass on voting for the war because they weren't in power and were afraid to vote against the invasion?

Do you remember how overwhelming the vote was? (I'll give you a hint... it passed by a larger margin than the Gulf Storm Resolution...)
Forcing Democracy down their throats, huh? You realize the Iraqi's, in the face of snipers, bombs, and threats of retaliation, show up at the polls as much, if not more, than Americans do? Our military is doing one heck of a job to force that many people to vote in a process they don't want in the face of danger.....

Why does Congress have a lower approval rating than the President?

 

[cowfishrule]

somebody didnt pay attention in history class...
Originally Posted by rudedog40
I still don't understand why you think the US should be the Big Brother and Protector of the Free World. Who gave us the right to do that?
Because we are the richest and most powerful nation. During WWII, we stuck our head in the sand while hitler was taking over europe. The world gave us grief over not getting involved, but hey, it wasnt our problem, right? Enter Pearl Harbor...
Yet, you want to filter billions of US dollars to a country we blew the crap out of just to get rid of one man.
We literally leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then spent a fortune to rebuild them. Whoa- Allies now. If im correct, we also helped rebuild Germany on condition that they put up the wall (pls verify this for me).
We're basically stuck in Iraq for at least another 5 years because the pro-war conservatives don't want to 'cut and run'.
Cut and Run= "Hello terrorists. Please just hang tight, we'll leave shortly so you can resume control and threaten us again. Oh, and everyone that died while we were here is meaningless."
Cut and Run is a typical Democrat stock answer. Tell the unhappy what they want to hear just to appease them without putting any thought into it.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
...
We literally leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then spent a fortune to rebuild them. Whoa- Allies now. If im correct, we also helped rebuild Germany on condition that they put up the wall (pls verify this for me)....
Actually the wall was built by the communists.
They built it to keep their citizens from fleeing to the west.
Eastern Europe was communist, of course, because a Democratic President refused to hold Stalin to the agreement he had made...

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You're missing the point on the WMD's. Many of those reports President Bush had came from President Clinton... How can you ignore that?
You accuse the "pro=war" crowd of scare tactics, yet then say "THE'RE ALREADY HERE". That's silly. Bin Laden has repeatedly called for attacks against the USA. What, did the terror cells fall asleep? They on vacation?

I could care less where the reports came from. The fact is, WMD's were the main selling point for going to war with Iraq. Now that the WMD's were never found, everyone's back peddling and saying the selling point was 'to combat the war on terror'.
No.. They are planning. How many years did it take to plan 9/11? Where were the guys who flew all the planes in 9/11 living and training? Half of them had State Drivers Licenses. You actually believe after they blew themselves up, no other group just like them hasn't taken their place?