lets here it for bush

1journeyman

Active Member
How many of Al Qeada have died in Iraq? Where would we have been fighting them if we weren't in Iraq? New York city? Washington? LA?
To say WWII is the only war that "kept our national language safe and secure" reverts back to the mentality that let Hitler rise in power to begin with. We fought in Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Libyia, etc. for our National interest. Short term we might have been better off not engaging, but long term?
You're paying more for gas now, so? To me that just say we didn't go into Iraq for oil, as many of the liberal media would try to make you believe. Oil is a world wide commodity. Travel outside the USA a bit and see how much folks are paying, then be thankful for $2.50 a gallon.
Critics say we are strengthening the resolve of terrorists. What does that mean? Are they going to really, really, really try to kill us now? At the point where they are willing to park a plane in a building I'm thinking their resolve is maxed out....
Now, as to invading Iraq; Iraq broke the peace agreement they signed after Desert Storm. To me that makes them fair game. I don't need to see the deserted terrorist camps, or the receipts to palestinian homide bombers' families, or the pictures of thousands dead at the hand of chemical weapons.
Our military is doing what they do best: Fighting the enemy. If our media would quit looking over their shoulders, and our weak minded, flip flopping politicians would grow backbones and step up and let them do their jobs this war would end a lot sooner.
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
How many of Al Qeada have died in Iraq? Where would we have been fighting them if we weren't in Iraq? New York city? Washington? LA?
To say WWII is the only war that "kept our national language safe and secure" reverts back to the mentality that let Hitler rise in power to begin with. We fought in Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Libyia, etc. for our National interest. Short term we might have been better off not engaging, but long term?
You're paying more for gas now, so? To me that just say we didn't go into Iraq for oil, as many of the liberal media would try to make you believe. Oil is a world wide commodity. Travel outside the USA a bit and see how much folks are paying, then be thankful for $2.50 a gallon.
Critics say we are strengthening the resolve of terrorists. What does that mean? Are they going to really, really, really try to kill us now? At the point where they are willing to park a plane in a building I'm thinking their resolve is maxed out....
Now, as to invading Iraq; Iraq broke the peace agreement they signed after Desert Storm. To me that makes them fair game. I don't need to see the deserted terrorist camps, or the receipts to palestinian homide bombers' families, or the pictures of thousands dead at the hand of chemical weapons.
Our military is doing what they do best: Fighting the enemy. If our media would quit looking over their shoulders, and our weak minded, flip flopping politicians would grow backbones and step up and let them do their jobs this war would end a lot sooner.
What is the end? How can the situation in Iraq be resolved? Also, who's profiting the most from this war and who do they have close ties to? What did we gain in Vietnam? You can not compare Libya, Panama and Granada, they were short term engagements that didn’t cost us 1000’s of lives and billions of dollars. Iraq has cost us 100's of billions of $$, image all the good we could have done with that money.
 

johnny84

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
If our media would quit looking over their shoulders, and our weak minded, flip flopping politicians would grow backbones and step up and let them do their jobs this war would end a lot sooner.
Sorry but I totally disagree with that last statement. The media has nothing to do with what is going on over in Iraq, last time I checked the media is not standing in the way of the troops from doing their job. The problem is and has always been "our president". He went in with out a plan and to this day he has no way of getting us out of it, his solution is to send more kids into Iraq. And again I will ask, for who? for what ? What are these kids dying for? They are not defending our country. Iraq was a giant mistake any way you look at it. We had no business what so ever being there. Our main focus should have been and should still be finding Al Qeada and all the extremists. Saddam was a pimple on our ass and could have been dealt with at a later date if there was evidence he had WMD.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by watson3
I owe you a drink..
I'll trade it in for a prayer for my buddy Karl, who works for Blackwater. He's a mechanic who frequently flies on missions to check out the copters. I'm waiting to hear back from him. Haven't heard anything since that Blackwater copter went down.
 

watson3

Active Member
Originally Posted by Johnny84
Our main focus should have been and should still be finding Al Qeada and all the extremists.
You mean like they found New York...
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by watson3
I beleive my avatar speaks for itself...
Are you sure you're not a liberal??
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
What is the end? How can the situation in Iraq be resolved? Also, who's profiting the most from this war and who do they have close ties to? What did we gain in Vietnam? You can not compare Libya, Panama and Granada, they were short term engagements that didn’t cost us 1000’s of lives and billions of dollars. Iraq has cost us 100's of billions of $$, image all the good we could have done with that money.
The end is victory. The end is when Iraq is a stable democracy in an unstable part of the war.
War is not a small thing. We've grown spoiled by our past victories. WWII was over 50 years ago and we still have troops in Europe. We backed out fo Korea and look where we are now with them (And former President Clinton's diplomacy bit us in the butt there, btw).
What good would "all that money" have done us if our country is being blown apart by radicals who've declared war on us?
Again I ask you, where would those terrorists be attacking us right now at if it weren't in Iraq?
 

watson3

Active Member
Originally Posted by Johnny84
I dont understand what your point is ?
This explains so much...OK..ON September 11, the Extremists found us...IN New York and various other places..Your solution is to sit back and wait..Maybe we could invite them back over if the say they are sorry and really mean it
 

watson3

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
Are you sure you're not a liberal??
If by that you mean do I support the killing of unborn children, Homosexuality, and lying down wihout a fight..Um..Yeah..Pretty sure I am not..What would lead you to beleive that
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Johnny84
Sorry but I totally disagree with that last statement. The media has nothing to do with what is going on over in Iraq, last time I checked the media is not standing in the way of the troops from doing their job. The problem is and has always been "our president". He went in with out a plan and to this day he has no way of getting us out of it, his solution is to send more kids into Iraq. And again I will ask, for who? for what ? What are these kids dying for? They are not defending our country. Iraq was a giant mistake any way you look at it. We had no business what so ever being there. Our main focus should have been and should still be finding Al Qeada and all the extremists. Saddam was a pimple on our ass and could have been dealt with at a later date if there was evidence he had WMD.
That's where you and I fundamentally disagree.
Can you imagine what the media of today would have reported about battles in WWII? Battles where we took thousands of casualties a day? Battles where we killed civilians to demoralize the enemy? Our soldiers today can't do their jobs appropriately for fear that they'll be branded murderers, baby killers, etc.
Again I'll ask the same question; Where would we be fighting Al Qeada if not in Iraq?
We could deal with Saddam later? :notsure: He was only getting stronger. That statement confuses me....
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The end is victory. The end is when Iraq is a stable democracy in an unstable part of the war.
War is not a small thing. We've grown spoiled by our past victories. WWII was over 50 years ago and we still have troops in Europe. We backed out fo Korea and look where we are now with them (And former President Clinton's diplomacy bit us in the butt there, btw).
What good would "all that money" have done us if our country is being blown apart by radicals who've declared war on us?
Again I ask you, where would those terrorists be attacking us right now at if it weren't in Iraq?
Do you really believe that they are going to have a stable democracy? The whole world knows we are setting up a puppet government who is going to look after our own oil interests in Iraq and I find it very hard to believe that they will stand for that. On top of that, it’s going against 1000’s of years of their culture and culture is a very hard thing to change.
Come on, I don’t think for a second that we’d have to worry ever day about terrorists attacking us on our own soil. America as a whole has become very wary and on the look out for anyone suspicious. The government played up the whole terror threat to play into their own interests.
 

johnny84

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The end is victory.
Again I ask you, where would those terrorists be attacking us right now at if it weren't in Iraq?
To answer your question, if Bush finished the job agains Bin Laden and not had turned his attention to Iraq, I fully believe that there would be much less attacks. Again the reason Al Qeada is in Iraq is because we invaded Iraq, we handed them on a silver platter our american troops and said "here you go Al Qeada, we are here in Iraq, come get us." and that is exactly what they did.
There is no need for Al Qeada to try and get inside our borders right now, we are in their backyard.
 

watson3

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
Come on, I don’t think for a second that we’d have to worry ever day about terrorists attacking us on our own soil.
Are you for real...
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
That's where you and I fundamentally disagree.
Can you imagine what the media of today would have reported about battles in WWII? Battles where we took thousands of casualties a day? Battles where we killed civilians to demoralize the enemy? Our soldiers today can't do their jobs appropriately for fear that they'll be branded murderers, baby killers, etc.
Again I'll ask the same question; Where would we be fighting Al Qeada if not in Iraq?
We could deal with Saddam later? :notsure: He was only getting stronger. That statement confuses me....
In WWII it was clear who the enemy was, they were marching around in German outfits. In Iraq it's not clear who is friend or foe and because of that the job is a lot more difficult. The innocents in Iraq should be safe from our soldiers and from their own people. It's sad but Iraq is much more dangerous now then it ever was under Saddam's rule.
 

johnny84

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
That's where you and I fundamentally disagree.
Can you imagine what the media of today would have reported about battles in WWII? Battles where we took thousands of casualties a day? Battles where we killed civilians to demoralize the enemy? Our soldiers today can't do their jobs appropriately for fear that they'll be branded murderers, baby killers, etc.
Again I'll ask the same question; Where would we be fighting Al Qeada if not in Iraq?
We could deal with Saddam later? :notsure: He was only getting stronger. That statement confuses me....

I really dont think the media of today would have been a problem. Was the media of today a problem when Saddam invaded Quait (spelling) ? No they were not and do you know why ? Its because we were asked to help Quait to rid them of Saddam, just like in WWII we were asked to help, we had world support just like in Quait. So no the media would not have been a problem.
How was Saddam getting stronger ? I can't see how he was getting stronger? Do you have any evidence to support that ? Only thing Saddam cared about was money and suppressing his people.
 
Top