News flash: the war in Iraq is NOT a war against terror

[jcrim]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Hey...I missed the pic.....Congrats on the new one. You see...I must be both ignorant and blind.
Hope mom is doing well too.
Thanks... everyone's doing great.

 

[scubadoo]

What they don't get (inclucing you) is the fact they are aiding the enemy. Please explain to me how this discourages the enemy . I do not have to consider an alternative view regarding this...it is the wrong view.
/QUOTE]
Here it is...get it? My analysis of the situation dictates that should I jump off the wagon then I am not supporting the troops and I send a message of encoragement to the terrorists..
Once I have arrived at this coclusion...I have no reason to consider the alternative....i.e. to discontinue support. This is based on my original support regarding the war on terror and MY continued support of our troops, their mission, and the president as it pertains to the war on terror.
If you think I am a die-hard supporter of Bush think again. many on this thread may recall my outward cricism of Bush after katrina. I am from New Orlleans and still have friends and family impacted by this storm. I recall Darth stating I had disdain for the federal government.
However, regarding the war on terror...I fully support the efforts...and I discount the alternative.
Can my postion change...sure it can......should I see evidence or circumstances where I feel it is in the best interests of our troops and this nation for my perosnal support to discontinue.
At this point...I do not consider the alternatives as commnicated by the political opposition to the war...this is why I do not consder it as a plausible next step in the war on terror.
I stand by my convictions.....it is a shame some of our leaders do not do the same.

 

[scubadoo]

Poor Hillary.....LOL
An Anti-War Challenge to Hillary Clinton (Sheehan and NY Libs Assail Hillary)
Yahoo-The Nation ^ | 12/05/05 | John Nichols
In an open letter posted in October on filmmaker Michael Moore's web site, Sheehan wrote of Clinton: "I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys."
Sheehan added that, "I will resist (Clinton's) candidacy with every bit of my power and strength."
That line led some New York activists to suggest that Sheehan should move to the state -- as Clinton did before her 2000 Senate run -- and run against the incumbent.

 

[1journeyman]

I do understand your concern about demoralizing the troops with critique of the policy. However, our troops are professionals"
Point of clarification; Are armed forces are not "professionals". They are volunteers.
We've seen this before... look to Vietnam for the damage politicians and "nay-sayers" can do to a war movement. The Vietnamese knew they couldn't be our soldiers and technology, so they used public opinion. Were we wrong in Vietnam? It doesn't matter... once we have men and women with boots on the ground we need to present a united front.
So we went to war because President Bush had a vendetta? I'd like to hear what that was... if he just wanted Saddam dead he could have easily done that without invading Iraq (Think Reagan vs. Kadaffi in the 80's.. Reagan bombed his houses and Kadaffi slept in tents for the next 10 years while wetting his pants everytime he heard a jet flying over)
We keep going astray..
Facts:
*Islamic extremists declared war on the US sometime in the 90's and we did nothing.
*On Sept. 11th. said terrorsits attacked our homeland's largest city and killed 3,000 civilians.
*Saddam is an extremist (Islamic or not can be argued)
*Saddam supported global terrorism.
*Saddam owned/used WMDs in the past
*Both parties in the USA, Russia, France, England, Israel etc. all said he had WMDs
Talk about connecting the dots... we are in a World War (Attacks have been carried out in Africa, Asia, North America, Europe and Bali (close to the Aussies)). It doesn't get much more global than that.
So where should we hunt Bin Laden down? Does anyone question whether Saddam would have harbored him if he had too? Saddam was a threat to world stability. Now he isn't.
That's a victory in the war on terrorism.
Let's not forget that the extremists hate us... does anyone question that those terrorists dying in Iraq right now would be far more deadly to have to be hunting down in our homeland?
Iraq was a brilliant strategic move. In less than 48 hours we are going to see a Democracy born in the heart of the Middle East. Syria has already had to bow to world pressure and leave Lebanon, Egypt is slowly reforming their voting laws, Lybia is asking for UN monitors to prove they are disarming their WMD programs. Iran is crazy, but they will soon find themselves surrounded by Democracy. Also, in a not so subtle way we've announced to Iran that any attack on Israel will be at the risk of flying over US military forces.
I've been accused of dwelling in "la la land". If you think all the reforming taking place in the middle east right now is coinsidence then maybe you should check your tunes too...

 

[scubadoo]

At the heart of the opposition is that Bush lied about WMD..I offer the following from the other side of the aisle....I guess these folks are liars...or to be politically correct...perhaps I should say they are "wreckless with the truth"..
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 You can never trust a gang..they are up to no good
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 I alwayys thought you were too short to make such bold statemetns...now I know it was all lies.
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 No way..not that guy..he has reformed and is making bottle rockets and M-80's..get your facts straight.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 .. Obviously you have overstated your confidence
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 This guy is incapable of lying!
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003..... Goodness, the baby formula was going to spoil...have a heart!
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 He did? I thought that was the that wag the dog movie..r dog the wag..I forget
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 Nothing is impossible if you beleive..Al, you lack confidence !
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 Good one Ted..I can always count on you at the Cocktail party for a good joke or two.
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 I saw Saddam add 2 plus 2 and he got 4...come on with that miscalculation...he is a walking Calculator.
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 Stop with that sky is falling crap...never trust a guy that sounds like he has a 24/7 head cold...
***)

 

[scubadoo]

How dare you lie to me...uh.........be less than truthfull
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 Really...you said this? Is it April Fools Day? How did you get on that Inteligence COmmittee....did you convince them the Wizzard of Oz was handing out brians?
Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 Ah come on..stop pulling my leg
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002..WOW..FACTS!!!!!!!..U big Liar U....Were you on Dragnet?

 

[scubadoo]

Huh?
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 Obviously you beleive in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny anf the Tooth Fairy..ask Santa for a brain....the Easter Bunny for some carrots to improve your eyesight..and and a few thousand from the tooth fairy for therapy.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
We beleive in what? Is this some new religion?
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 I never beleive anything I hear that is stated by someone with Ex in their title. Yeah..I suspect alot things...like I suspect there will be a Richard Simmons Jr one day...wake up and quit commnicating dreams.

 

[scubadoo]

What you talkin about Hillis?
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 Hmmm the Swammie says ...... you start changing this view around November, 2005........Where's Cleo to back me up? Do you know how difficult it is to predict the past?

 

[1journeyman]

Sad isn't it.
Great research Scuba.

 

[scubadoo]

Yes

 

[reefbabe]

Originally Posted by jcrim
Furthermore, while you think that voicing opposition against this war is wrong, I think it is an obligation. As stated by Jones, the soldiers don't have a choice on policy decisions. They do what they are told. If I believe that this war represents Bush's personal vendetta and that sacrificing Americans for his own agenda is wrong, then I must speak up. The soldiers don't have the right to object on their own behalf. Public outcry against this war is the only way to truly support our troops and their families.
Good intentions....but completely WRONG. Do you even know anyone who is military? I can vouch for all military when I say we DO have a say and a choice...that statement was ridiculous.
Also, someone stated that our military is not made of professionals and reffered to Viet Nam as a "good" example...LOL! If you recall...those people were all drafted. Do you think that the military is a bunch of people that just go around and shoot at people all day? I assure you that our military go through hours, months and years of rigorous training. This includes schools, simulated training areas....every day a military personel goes to "work" they are either being taught or are in training. The average workday is at minimum 14 hrs...some run two days before a day off and others run 3 weeks (that's along work day, lol). My husband is an ah1z (attack helicopter) uh1n (utility helicopter) communications navigation electrical weapons system technician. So basically, anything with a wire on a helicopter (including computer systems) he can fix....sorry, I really don't think that he was born with this kind of knowledge. I believe HIM to be a "professional". PLEASE do NOT undermind or military.
Scubadoo...as you've stated before....those who oppose have yet to come up with "hard" facts to support their oppinions. Kudos to you....it seems as if you have come up with many! You can huff and puff all you want....people only believe what they "want" to believe. I'll bet those who oppose have failed to take the time to appriciate all the facts and statements you have posted....and instead of reading what is ACTUALLY there....have yet again, skimmed over it!

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Reefbabe
, I really don't think that he was born with this kind of knowledge. I believe HIM to be a "professional". PLEASE do NOT undermind or military.
Scubadoo...as you've stated before....
Wait!!! Hehe, I'm on your side!
What I said about our soldiers not being professional was only meant to say that they are all "volunteers" and not drafted. My dive buddy is an ex marine aviation/electronic tech. The dude can fix anything..
To me, "professional" soldiers paints the picture of Roman Legions or British Man o' Wars.

 

[reefbabe]

Sorry...I've misunderstood. I guess I did a bit of "skimming" myself, LOL!
I truely have enjoyed this thread....every LINE of it (found it to be tremendously addictive).

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Wait!!! Hehe, I'm on your side!
What I said about our soldiers not being professional was only meant to say that they are all "volunteers" and not drafted.
Wait, by saying that they're not professional means that you're pointing out that they are not drafted? So if they were drafted then they would be proffessionals? That doesn't make sense.
When I said they were professionals, I meant that they were highly trained, very capable individuals. Or did you just pick that line out and try to use it out of context?

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
At the heart of the opposition is that Bush lied about WMD..
^^^^So says you. You certainly havent heard that from me.
You can post 50 more pages of quotes and articles trying to make this more about partisan politics. As far as i can remember, I haven't praised anyone, or tried to argue any certain party has been right about any of this. The topic just hasn't come up in my posts. So these pages of quotes are a moot point. Or, at least they are not in response to me. Making up your own context again?

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Reefbabe
I can vouch for all military when I say we DO have a say and a choice...that statement was ridiculous.
That statement wasn't meant to be a slam. All that was meant by it was the simple fact that the soldiers, when called to duty, do not have the option of saying, "well, no, I don't think I agree with this, so I'd rather not go. Check with me on your next war and maybe I'll agree with you then and help you out."
I can't believe I'm even arguing that point.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I have yet to hear how stating non-support of the war and/or the policy on terror discourages terrorism while encorages and supports our troops. . This is the view I do not consider.
Come on, think about what a silly point this is. No one has made this point, read my entire post and try to put the thoughts together to understand just the most basic of complexity in thinking and reasoning. I know you can do it if you try hard. And I've yet to hear anyone say they don't support a war on terror. Did you just add that in there for effect, to create an absurdity, to try and make your point sound like you were responding to someone who doesn't support a war on terror? Proper context, proper quoting within the context, focus, I know you can do it.

 

[farmboy]

I can see the argument. I understand how one believes in a position wrapped in complexities. I don't think the bad guys do.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by jones
Come on, think about what a silly point this is. No one has made this point, read my entire post and try to put the thoughts together to understand just the most basic of complexity in thinking and reasoning. I know you can do it if you try hard. And I've yet to hear anyone say they don't support a war on terror. Did you just add that in there for effect, to create an absurdity, to try and make your point sound like you were responding to someone who doesn't support a war on terror? Proper context, proper quoting within the context, focus, I know you can do it.
Ok, let me rephrase it for Scuba. How does asking for a troop withdrawl or saying this war is wrong support our troops and at the same time cause their enemies to want to put down their weapons? I can't see it as support. You do have a right to voice it...but you can't tell me Zarqawi and his "freedom fighters" (as Michael moore puts it) are not going to take the sentiment to heart and try harder against our troops.
Also, what is your alternative plan for Iraq. I can understand being against the war. But now that we are there........there is nothing to be done. So I am asking those that think the war in Iraq is wrong and want us out, what is the next step? I want ideas, not a whole plan just one idea. I criticized Clinton a few times while he was in office. Each time I did I gave an alternative plan on what we should do instead. And I didn't criticize him for lying under oath. Just his foreign policy.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by jones
^^^^So says you. You certainly havent heard that from me.
You can post 50 more pages of quotes and articles trying to make this more about partisan politics. As far as i can remember, I haven't praised anyone, or tried to argue any certain party has been right about any of this. The topic just hasn't come up in my posts. So these pages of quotes are a moot point. Or, at least they are not in response to me. Making up your own context again?
I beleive the post was in response to many views in this thread that Bush misled. Please do not think every post is directed at you.....but I am ignorant so you'll have to consider this shortcoming.