The Democrats and WMD

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by rraley
I refuse to believe that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Clinton thought that he did, as did Bush I, and this current Bush. Our nation had an obligation after the first Persian Gulf War to get Hussein out of power and it is damn good that we got him out now. The man was one of the worst violators of human rights in our history and he violated scores of UN resolutions. Could President Bush had done a better job of getting UN support? Absolutely, but I am not going to apologize for the effort to remove a menace to the entire world from power in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

That 'Dems' cat is way off the hook.. I guess we should all just mind our business and go along singing kumbaya...

That refusal to step-up and be the leader of this country by dealing with attacks against our people is the exact and precise reason 9/11 happened. I guess his mommy told him not to fight back when the bullies pushed him around at school, too.

[Penn]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
That 'Dems' cat is way off the hook.. I guess we should all just mind our business and go along singing kumbaya...

That refusal to step-up and be the leader of this country by dealing with attacks against our people is the exact and precise reason 9/11 happened.
I guess his mommy told him not to fight back when the bullies pushed him around at school, too.

Or the fact that that one of his Cabinet members tried for over an hour to reach him with the news that Osama had been located, targeted and was within an inch of his life.

But, as fate would have it, other things popped up, the window of opportunity passed, and we lost a very good chance to take this killer out.

Ah, but don't you recall; "it was just sex, stupid"!?!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...welcome to the forums!

Now, don't even go there:

Could President Bush had done a better job of getting UN support?

New York City has had anti pan handling laws and fines for jaywalking and other traffic control and public nuisance ordanances for decades.

Rudy Guiliani ran a campaign on ENFORCING this stuff and making people behave more civily.

The left LAUGHED at him. He won. He did what he said he would and New York City and the world are better for it. They still haven't forgiven him.

George Bush stated during campaign 2000 that he would, among other things, hold Iraq and the UN responsible for their commitments they left lacking for almost a decade at that point.

He won. He did what he said he would do.

The left is jumping up and down like organ grinder monkeys because of this.

What more, after now 12 years and three different Presidents, was anyone on the US going to do to get the UN to do their job?

Answer: Nothing.

France, Germany and Russia were doing business with Hussein right up to the day we moved. No one should kid themselves about what this means as far as their Security Council votes.

They were NOT going to do anything.

No one wants to read the Iraq War resolution because it says, simply, 'we ought to deal with this guy sooner rather than later' because it was a correct and sane position.

There is this INSANE argument, that EVEN though Iraq would not let the UN or the US verify everything they commited themselves to doing, the Bush administration is SOMEHOW criminally negligent for NOT KNOWING exactly what they had or had not done.

Madness.

Giving an inch when all the facts are so evident and clear is tantamount to letting the children stay up an extra half hour simply because they complained enough.

It rewards, like Iraq pre Bush, for poor behavior; the coin of the Realm, it seems, in the Democratic Party.

Madness.

[rraley]

Look, President Bush was right to do what he did but he still could have had a better long-term committment to multilateralism. One of Bush's first actions in office was to withdraw the United States from six international treaties; not a good first step in being part of the World. Then after 9/11 President Bush failed to realize that more than just Americans heard his speeches. His tone could have been different and more open to other nations. I was watching CNN presents a couple of nights ago that chronicled the Islamic World's reaction to 9/11 and the War on Terror. Many of these moderate Muslims said that they felt very bad for the American people but that the language of Bush turned them off. It just seems like Bush does not consider the international consequences of his words. For instance he referred to Iraq as a crusade before we went to war...not too good for Muslims to hear that and there was a major uproar overseas.
The French are terrible...Jacque Chirac sucks certain things that will be blocked out if I type them, but they weren't the only ones that were mad at us. The recent international donor conference to ask for monetary support from foreign nations in Iraq yielded $0. There is a much more wide ranging problem here than just a couple members of the Security Council. Bush I got UN support for Persian Gulf I and Bush II got a strong resolution condeming Iraq; you cannot say that he could not get UN support for the war.

[Aimhigh2000]

We all know Iraq had WMD's, we sold it to them. Now as far as people on welfare or that live "alternative" lifestyles had their own websites......lemme say this. First, I don't know what you mean by "Alternative Lifestyle" If you mean gay, then say gay. I am and it doesn't offend me. I would rather conservatives say gay then lump alot of weird things under the title "Alternative" Second, I served in the first Gulf War. I come from a proud military family and I agree that the first war was worth it. But, I disagree with this one. Hey, we didn't find the WMD's, Saddam is out, turn the country over to the Iraqi's and bring the boys (and girls) home. Hey, we are not the world's police. Let those countries fend for themselves. Let's sit back and watch. America has its "interests" in everything, everywhere. Well, it is time that we take our hand out of the cookie jar and sit back at the dinner table. We have the best military and it should be well funded. I just think we should bring our people back on this side of the pond. Secure our borders, secure our land. Keep this the land of the free, home of the brave. Keep America free, the others can do it on their own if they want to. We are not the World Police.

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
We are not the World Police.

There's a part of me that couldn't agree with you more. But, like it or not, we operate under a global economy and when bad things happen in other countries, it affects us.

So unless we're willing to TRULY shut our borders - cease trade with other countries, turn their immigrants back at the gate, quit giving them military and financial aid, quit feeding them, and quit fighting their battles for them - it'll never work.

That means no NATO, no UN, no whatever other global organizations we belong to.

What that also means is that these places turn into the wild west. If a Saddam-wannabe decides to take over another country and he's strong enough to do it, that country gets taken over. If China wants to take over Taiwan, the Koreas and the other Asian countries, there's no US disapproval to dissuade them.

Since we're not a nation of warmongers and we haven't taken over another country since we nabbed this one from the Indians, the US and the freedoms its citizens enjoy will go the way of the dinosaur. Why? Because eventually, when the warlords have taken over every other country, they're going to come after us. And we won't have the numbers or the strength to stop them.

[Aimhigh2000]

OOO, touchy subject indeed. We supposedly live in a global economy, but, the United States has been running around with our nose in everyone else's business, that we don't know how to act in a global economy. We have our little red wagons now being made in China, Levi's Jeans in Mexico. Maybe if we paid a little more attention to the global economy, we could be major players in it, and not second to the EU. Like I said, we need to get back to the job of taking care of America first. And there is NATO and the UN, let them deal with these problems. We should be making the best merchandise in the world, not importing it.

[vraiblonde]

Um...Aim...I think one of us doesn't understand what "global economy" means. I suspect it's you.

[Aimhigh2000]

As I currently maintain a 3.8 in school, the fact that I deal with business everyday, and the fact that in 4 of my 5 classes we are dealing with the issue, I do not believe that I do not understand the global economy. My position is simply that America needs to wake up and see how the rest of the world is adapting to it, lest we be left behind.