9/11, The War on Terror, and How Our Nation Has Healed
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
The Point Being
I think you missed the point here. Up to the time the first bomb or torpedo slammed into our ships at Pearl Harbor, we were Not at war with Japan. It was a sudden sneak attack against that base.
Yes, in any sense Pearl Harbor was a legitimate target IF war had been declared. Do you honestly believe there were no civilian casualties at Pearl that day? Normally, civilian personnel are either evacuated in the event of an invasion or threat of attack, but there was none of that here. I think you might want to re-assess your idea on this.
penn
I think you missed the point here. Up to the time the first bomb or torpedo slammed into our ships at Pearl Harbor, we were Not at war with Japan. It was a sudden sneak attack against that base.Yes, in any sense Pearl Harbor was a legitimate target IF war had been declared. Do you honestly believe there were no civilian casualties at Pearl that day? Normally, civilian personnel are either evacuated in the event of an invasion or threat of attack, but there was none of that here. I think you might want to re-assess your idea on this.
penn
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
The Point Being
Wrong SmallTown! The only "targets" we and other coalition fighters are hitting are the missile and AAA batteries that "light -up" our airplanes on radar. I don't know if you are aware of this, but these birds have equipment onboard that indicates whether they are simply being "tracked" or whether they have been "locked up". As far as my experience tells me, we don't fire until the latter condition is reached.
Furthermore, the above scenario, ie. tracking coalition aircraft by missile or AAA radars is in violation of the UN Treaty. And no, I do not know what the number# the violation is, sorry.
penn
Wrong SmallTown! The only "targets" we and other coalition fighters are hitting are the missile and AAA batteries that "light -up" our airplanes on radar. I don't know if you are aware of this, but these birds have equipment onboard that indicates whether they are simply being "tracked" or whether they have been "locked up". As far as my experience tells me, we don't fire until the latter condition is reached.Furthermore, the above scenario, ie. tracking coalition aircraft by missile or AAA radars is in violation of the UN Treaty. And no, I do not know what the number# the violation is, sorry.
penn
Ok, some of us misunderstood what I had to say here. I support the War on Terror yet I think that needs to continue to focus on bin Laden rather that Hussein. The War on Terror's homeland security provisions are perfect, they need to stay. I just think that blowing the damn ragheads to hell would do nothing but to incite even further hatred. And I truly resent that Bush has used the War on Terror to scare everybody into voting for his party.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
I got Issues, You got Answers?
Ok, I am going to take issue here. Not with the first statement, but with the second and third. The first statement
we agree on.
I really believe that the Arab World is just doing a lot of posturing over the US/UK/Spanish/Australian/NZ/CAN/
and whoever else's fight with Iraq. They secretly would love to see this guy go. He's a major thorn in all their sides.
It also threatens their religious and political way of life, ie., they would actually have to go to a democratic(ouch!)
society, and that might be scary to them. Women have the right to vote?? Women can possess drivers licenses?? Allah save us!
Pres. Bush did not get elected because there was a war on Terror. I do not recall him using "the fight Against Terror" as a platform plank. He didn't run on that.
What he is trying to do is keep America from complacency. It might have been Heretic that said "we Americans are noted for having a short memory" You may think this is from "left field", but our very way of life has something to do with that. We get so inured to wierd and bizarre happenings in this country and around the world, we just take them in stride.
Look at the posts on this site, for example. "Man gets eaten in W. Germany by mail-order homo; "Man gets tired of feeding his cat:barbeques it and eats it........ " it goes on and on.
penn
Ok, I am going to take issue here. Not with the first statement, but with the second and third. The first statementwe agree on.
I really believe that the Arab World is just doing a lot of posturing over the US/UK/Spanish/Australian/NZ/CAN/
and whoever else's fight with Iraq. They secretly would love to see this guy go. He's a major thorn in all their sides.
It also threatens their religious and political way of life, ie., they would actually have to go to a democratic(ouch!)
society, and that might be scary to them. Women have the right to vote?? Women can possess drivers licenses?? Allah save us!
Pres. Bush did not get elected because there was a war on Terror. I do not recall him using "the fight Against Terror" as a platform plank. He didn't run on that.
What he is trying to do is keep America from complacency. It might have been Heretic that said "we Americans are noted for having a short memory" You may think this is from "left field", but our very way of life has something to do with that. We get so inured to wierd and bizarre happenings in this country and around the world, we just take them in stride.
Look at the posts on this site, for example. "Man gets eaten in W. Germany by mail-order homo; "Man gets tired of feeding his cat:barbeques it and eats it........ " it goes on and on.
penn
I don't disagree with the concept
of a war on terror.
I just have this natural aversion to being asked to accept things like WAR on faith. I will NOT ASSUME these guys have all the answers and are doing the right thing. Maybe they are, but they haven't convinced me, and many other Americans, and many other world leaders.
See, there, I did it again. I mixed up Iraq with the war on terror. I forgot that the deal with Iraq is no longer connected to terrorism. It's about regime change. Oh wait, no it's not. Now it's about WMD's. He's a lunatic that needs to be controlled. By murdering him and all of his followers.
The point is, I can't trust the motivations of the guys making the decisions. And I don't want to hear any Bill Clinton stories. Whatever got us here, whatever we believed in in the past, doesn't really matter now. What is the right thing to do today?
If we have to give up our freedom to get the security we want, is it worth it? Will we really get the security, or is it just the CHANCE of security?
If we give up our freedom, will we ever get it back?
Can we selectively remove freedoms so that only the bad guys are targeted?
Our society is based on RULES. i.e. LAWS. If there are no appropriate rules to cover what's going on, we need to make new ones... not respond like some....hmmm...rogue despot who does whatever he wants.
of a war on terror.
I just have this natural aversion to being asked to accept things like WAR on faith. I will NOT ASSUME these guys have all the answers and are doing the right thing. Maybe they are, but they haven't convinced me, and many other Americans, and many other world leaders.
See, there, I did it again. I mixed up Iraq with the war on terror. I forgot that the deal with Iraq is no longer connected to terrorism. It's about regime change. Oh wait, no it's not. Now it's about WMD's. He's a lunatic that needs to be controlled. By murdering him and all of his followers.
The point is, I can't trust the motivations of the guys making the decisions. And I don't want to hear any Bill Clinton stories. Whatever got us here, whatever we believed in in the past, doesn't really matter now. What is the right thing to do today?
If we have to give up our freedom to get the security we want, is it worth it? Will we really get the security, or is it just the CHANCE of security?
If we give up our freedom, will we ever get it back?
Can we selectively remove freedoms so that only the bad guys are targeted?
Our society is based on RULES. i.e. LAWS. If there are no appropriate rules to cover what's going on, we need to make new ones... not respond like some....hmmm...rogue despot who does whatever he wants.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Re: I don't disagree with the concept
Alright, I have no problem with most of your commentary, but now you want NEW rules? Like what do you have in mind?New rules have a way of conflicting with older, established rules, and soon you need a lawyer to distingiush between them, which has preference, and when!
We do not need to make things more complicated than they already are.
penn
Alright, I have no problem with most of your commentary, but now you want NEW rules? Like what do you have in mind?New rules have a way of conflicting with older, established rules, and soon you need a lawyer to distingiush between them, which has preference, and when!We do not need to make things more complicated than they already are.
penn
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Jeessssuuss HHHh Krebs...
Latest pearl from you:
So we can get "here", again and again? A critical component for one to figure out what to do about a given predicament is to analyze how one got there. To leave this key thought process out invites going nowhere or getting in deeper trouble. Success without planning is called "luck".
You are an unabashed supporter of the person who could have done 2nd most to avert this: Clinton (#1 is Saddam)
Clinton failed to supply the necessary backbone to the UN to make Hussein comply with what the UN demanded and what he, Saddam, agreed to in order to grasp peace.
The UN decided that Iraq should not posses certain weapons based on their, Iraq’s, past actions. The UN needs participation from its members, ESPECIALLY the biggest and strongest, to enact it's policies. Clinton FAILED to do his duty, the UN trued and blued and agreed to by all DUTY.
Now, today, W is helping the UN do it's damn job. If he does not then Iraq will reach a critical mass where they can obliterate a neighbor in order to take over, causing worldwide instability in the energy markets thereby threatening our, the US, peace and prosperity (NATIONAL INTEREST), something they attempted against Iran and Kuwait most recently.
THAT IS WHY WE (The world, via the UN) HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IRAQ.
Now, IF Clinton had done his job, all would be well. IF W does his, all will be well. IF people like you would simply support YOUR President, like I'm sure you did for 8 recent years, instead of some demonstrably bad person like Hussein THEN Saddam WILL comply like he did the last time someone MADE him comply and this will all be over sooner and for the better.
As long as Hussein has people like you to appeal to then the whole situation is more dangerous for everybody inlcuding the hapless Iraqi people.
Now, please, what part of this don't you get or don't you agree with?
You can argue, if you want, that Hussein is an ally against terror.
You always seem to feel our President is not working for the best interests of our nation, so, how far of a stretch can that be, really?
Latest pearl from you:
So we can get "here", again and again? A critical component for one to figure out what to do about a given predicament is to analyze how one got there. To leave this key thought process out invites going nowhere or getting in deeper trouble. Success without planning is called "luck".
You are an unabashed supporter of the person who could have done 2nd most to avert this: Clinton (#1 is Saddam)
Clinton failed to supply the necessary backbone to the UN to make Hussein comply with what the UN demanded and what he, Saddam, agreed to in order to grasp peace.
The UN decided that Iraq should not posses certain weapons based on their, Iraq’s, past actions. The UN needs participation from its members, ESPECIALLY the biggest and strongest, to enact it's policies. Clinton FAILED to do his duty, the UN trued and blued and agreed to by all DUTY.
Now, today, W is helping the UN do it's damn job. If he does not then Iraq will reach a critical mass where they can obliterate a neighbor in order to take over, causing worldwide instability in the energy markets thereby threatening our, the US, peace and prosperity (NATIONAL INTEREST), something they attempted against Iran and Kuwait most recently.
THAT IS WHY WE (The world, via the UN) HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IRAQ.
Now, IF Clinton had done his job, all would be well. IF W does his, all will be well. IF people like you would simply support YOUR President, like I'm sure you did for 8 recent years, instead of some demonstrably bad person like Hussein THEN Saddam WILL comply like he did the last time someone MADE him comply and this will all be over sooner and for the better.
As long as Hussein has people like you to appeal to then the whole situation is more dangerous for everybody inlcuding the hapless Iraqi people.
Now, please, what part of this don't you get or don't you agree with?
You can argue, if you want, that Hussein is an ally against terror.
You always seem to feel our President is not working for the best interests of our nation, so, how far of a stretch can that be, really?
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Well Said Larry
Very good points Larry. What our friends don't seem to grasp is the obvious fact that Saddam has been in violation of the UN Resolutions since the end of '91, but nobody has gotten together to say "Why isn't Hussein complying with them until now?"
So now, W is holding the UNs collective feet to the fire due to some shady, behind the scene dealings that Saddam is doing. Call it what you will, but someone in intelligence
has seen, heard or got wind of something sinister going on. It might not have been much, maybe a communications intercept, whatever. Most likely it's been traced to a party to a party who is a party to the "bad guys" in Iraq.
And so it starts, especially if it occured around the time of 9/11, now the ball really gets rolling; more things are found out, traced, and LOOK who the trail leads back to?
Guys, I think we are doing our best, so lets see where this course of events takes us. But as Larry says, let us try a new tact: Back our LEADERS!
penn
Very good points Larry. What our friends don't seem to grasp is the obvious fact that Saddam has been in violation of the UN Resolutions since the end of '91, but nobody has gotten together to say "Why isn't Hussein complying with them until now?" So now, W is holding the UNs collective feet to the fire due to some shady, behind the scene dealings that Saddam is doing. Call it what you will, but someone in intelligence
has seen, heard or got wind of something sinister going on. It might not have been much, maybe a communications intercept, whatever. Most likely it's been traced to a party to a party who is a party to the "bad guys" in Iraq.
And so it starts, especially if it occured around the time of 9/11, now the ball really gets rolling; more things are found out, traced, and LOOK who the trail leads back to?
Guys, I think we are doing our best, so lets see where this course of events takes us. But as Larry says, let us try a new tact: Back our LEADERS!
penn
Oh, Bush is using the UN. What a bunch of bs!! Do you recall that our president has said that we would advocate a unilaterial attack against Iraq even if the UN would not approve of it? Look, if the UN discovers that the Iraqis have nukes, then I am for war with allies, only after we have exhausted all peaceful alternatives. Bush does not get high marks on this because Cheney, Card, and Rumsfeld have more influence than Powell (who I geuinely believes that war with Iraq is avoidable).
You know when Clinton was in office, we did not hear of anti-American sentiment deciding elections outside of the Middle East. This year we have had that in Germany and South Korea, that's right South Korea, our best ally. Look Bush needs to get a little more inclusive on his foreign policy or hell everyone will be pissed at us.
You know when Clinton was in office, we did not hear of anti-American sentiment deciding elections outside of the Middle East. This year we have had that in Germany and South Korea, that's right South Korea, our best ally. Look Bush needs to get a little more inclusive on his foreign policy or hell everyone will be pissed at us.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
dems4rodserling...
Wow!
You are more fun than a cat with scotch tape on his paws! Laughs and laughs!
Lemme see...
He's doing that because it is proper AND people like you, his fellow citizens, demanded it. Now, you're miffed because on top of being right he's also backed up by the UN. I'm still trying to figure out why your hate is so deep that even Saddam Hussein is favorable to George W. Bush...
That's not what the UN says. There's a whole list of stuff he agreed to not be doing. They WON'T find nukes. He's building them. That's why we are gonna stop him. Yah see, after he builds them, he's MORE dangerous because...oh...nevermind.
Hmm...I know! What say we just WAIT until he's finished building them and then, then we go get 'em! How'd that be?
Not sure who loved old Bill more, Hussein or Kim Jong-il. Hussein loved him because Bill let him rebuild his weapons programs. Kim loved him because, well, your heard about their nukes, right? And the nice reactor Bill gave them in agreement for not building nukes? No? Didn't hear that one? Huh. I'm shocked.
You like Nazi analogies. Did you know that Adolph Hitler was partial to Neville Chamberlain? Wanna know why?
What next? Hamas liked us better under Clinton to?
Did you notice in Clintons recent speech he said the same stuff you are saying? "everybody liked me!" What a coincidence! If only we'd do what the bad guys want, why, they'd like us more!
Gee golly!
Wow!
You are more fun than a cat with scotch tape on his paws! Laughs and laughs!
Lemme see...
He's doing that because it is proper AND people like you, his fellow citizens, demanded it. Now, you're miffed because on top of being right he's also backed up by the UN. I'm still trying to figure out why your hate is so deep that even Saddam Hussein is favorable to George W. Bush...
That's not what the UN says. There's a whole list of stuff he agreed to not be doing. They WON'T find nukes. He's building them. That's why we are gonna stop him. Yah see, after he builds them, he's MORE dangerous because...oh...nevermind.
Hmm...I know! What say we just WAIT until he's finished building them and then, then we go get 'em! How'd that be?
Not sure who loved old Bill more, Hussein or Kim Jong-il. Hussein loved him because Bill let him rebuild his weapons programs. Kim loved him because, well, your heard about their nukes, right? And the nice reactor Bill gave them in agreement for not building nukes? No? Didn't hear that one? Huh. I'm shocked.
You like Nazi analogies. Did you know that Adolph Hitler was partial to Neville Chamberlain? Wanna know why?
What next? Hamas liked us better under Clinton to?
Did you notice in Clintons recent speech he said the same stuff you are saying? "everybody liked me!" What a coincidence! If only we'd do what the bad guys want, why, they'd like us more!
Gee golly!
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Where do we go from here?
I caught the afternoon news where Secy of State Colin Powell stated the Iraqi regime has not been forthcoming in their declaration (Exactly what they have/do not have in the way of WMD) as mandated by the UN Resolution #1441.
It was supposed to be " a full, accurate and complete report, it was anything but."
But wait! The Iraqis say "let them check around", that thay may have left a few things out(gee, we're sorry!) As one intelligence expert put it on the "O'reilly Factor" tonight, "As I see it, they've got three strikes, they just took #1".
whaddaya think Maynard and Dems?
penn
I caught the afternoon news where Secy of State Colin Powell stated the Iraqi regime has not been forthcoming in their declaration (Exactly what they have/do not have in the way of WMD) as mandated by the UN Resolution #1441. It was supposed to be " a full, accurate and complete report, it was anything but."
But wait! The Iraqis say "let them check around", that thay may have left a few things out(gee, we're sorry!) As one intelligence expert put it on the "O'reilly Factor" tonight, "As I see it, they've got three strikes, they just took #1".
whaddaya think Maynard and Dems?
penn
Point taken, Larry.
I guess what I was saying is that there is plenty of blame to go around. One could make the case that Reagan paying ransom to kidnapper/terrorists has something to do with what's going on now too. I guess i would prefer to leave the names out, and just talk about the issues. Except that Bush is THE GUY now, so we need to talk about what we think HE should be doing.
We (the USA) seem to be drifting toward a position I am OK with.
I am happy Bush is (allegedly) trying to work within the UN framework.
I am happy we are not at war with Iraq yet.
I am happy we have inspectors there.
I am happy with have shifted from War with Iraq because we need to trust shrub, to merely murdering saddam, to controlling WMD's.
My problem is, as dems pointed out, it all looks like a smokescreen. It looks to me like shrub wants to fight Iraq whether we get a good reason or not. As time passes, we may get a good reason. And I admit, we are verrrrry close.
More coming...
I guess what I was saying is that there is plenty of blame to go around. One could make the case that Reagan paying ransom to kidnapper/terrorists has something to do with what's going on now too. I guess i would prefer to leave the names out, and just talk about the issues. Except that Bush is THE GUY now, so we need to talk about what we think HE should be doing.
We (the USA) seem to be drifting toward a position I am OK with.
I am happy Bush is (allegedly) trying to work within the UN framework.
I am happy we are not at war with Iraq yet.
I am happy we have inspectors there.
I am happy with have shifted from War with Iraq because we need to trust shrub, to merely murdering saddam, to controlling WMD's.
My problem is, as dems pointed out, it all looks like a smokescreen. It looks to me like shrub wants to fight Iraq whether we get a good reason or not. As time passes, we may get a good reason. And I admit, we are verrrrry close.
More coming...
As far as Powell- do I trust US to be fair and objective in our public statements about Iraq? No. Do you?
We may be right, i don't know. Hopefully, we shall see.
As far as violating sanctions: Yes iraq has violated sanctions. Is the punishment for any violation to turn the country into a sheet of glass? There are other options, there are other enemies **who might be more dangerous** , and what is the cost vs. the benefit?
I don't think ego, shrubby's or yours or anybody's, should be the reason we have a war. saddam steps over the sanction line and we feel like we've been b*tch slapped and have to nuke them.
I might have said this before: I spoke with an acqaintance after the election. He voted repub, and I asked why. The first thing he said was that he couldn't stand the thought of saddam sitting over there laughing at us. My feeling is, why should we care? We can take him out any time, any where. He can "needle' us forever- so what. if he steps over a certain line- defined by world opinion (community law), we take him down.
We may be right, i don't know. Hopefully, we shall see.
As far as violating sanctions: Yes iraq has violated sanctions. Is the punishment for any violation to turn the country into a sheet of glass? There are other options, there are other enemies **who might be more dangerous** , and what is the cost vs. the benefit?
I don't think ego, shrubby's or yours or anybody's, should be the reason we have a war. saddam steps over the sanction line and we feel like we've been b*tch slapped and have to nuke them.
I might have said this before: I spoke with an acqaintance after the election. He voted repub, and I asked why. The first thing he said was that he couldn't stand the thought of saddam sitting over there laughing at us. My feeling is, why should we care? We can take him out any time, any where. He can "needle' us forever- so what. if he steps over a certain line- defined by world opinion (community law), we take him down.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
There's more . . .
Dr. Hans Blix, the chief UN Arms Inspector, himself said the Iraqi declaration does not satisfy or address the issues that it was supposed to.
An issue of some 550 Chem/Biological Warfare shells were said to have been destroyed by Iraq, but they are unwilling to show the Inspectors where the remains are! That's GOT to be a he!! of a big pile, so where is it?
A couple hundred aluminum tubes sold to them, purportedly for use in constructing more CBW weapons, but the Iraqis won't divulge where they are either!
The Asst. Ambassador to the UN from France has said the same thing; this declaration is not forthcoming. Furthermore, Dr. Blix not a U.S. guy he isn't working for the U.S., he's an International Inspector from Scandinavia, neutral, I'd say.
penn
Dr. Hans Blix, the chief UN Arms Inspector, himself said the Iraqi declaration does not satisfy or address the issues that it was supposed to. An issue of some 550 Chem/Biological Warfare shells were said to have been destroyed by Iraq, but they are unwilling to show the Inspectors where the remains are! That's GOT to be a he!! of a big pile, so where is it?
A couple hundred aluminum tubes sold to them, purportedly for use in constructing more CBW weapons, but the Iraqis won't divulge where they are either!
The Asst. Ambassador to the UN from France has said the same thing; this declaration is not forthcoming. Furthermore, Dr. Blix not a U.S. guy he isn't working for the U.S., he's an International Inspector from Scandinavia, neutral, I'd say.
penn
H
Heretic
Guest
Blix is an arms inspector nothing more, he doesnt decide who needs to go to war or not. He has one job to do and that is to inspect for weapons, not decide policy.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
MG...
We spent over 40 years of ups and downs since WWII with our military strength.
Some periods we were very aggressive around the globe. Some not. Sometimes our armed forces were not all they could be. Some times they were damned close.
All this inconsistency because we have a regular, steady, peaceful turnover of power in our country. We not only survive this but we prosper with this because, while it ain't perfect, it is by far the best political system going.
Because of this we can easily do as you suggest and leave names out. It is us, US. No one person can do too many great, or terrible things, because of our system.
Do you remember when WE went and started bombing the Serbs in the 90's? Do you remember how rather sudden it all got going?
Our current situation has been criticized as going way to fast...or dragging until the election or this or that. Iraq has simply been an issue to this President since the campaign.
Back to Serbia. Remember we just HAD to get going because 100's of thousands were being butchered? Well, a case could have been made that we risked far more with the Russians than we ever will risk with Hussein. The Serbs are rather close with Russians. In fact, the Serbs were our allies as well against Hitler. The people we ran in to save, the Muslims, were in lock step with the Nazis in WWII. Do you think we did wrong then?
The point I'm trying to get around to is that I just don't understand the reluctance on your part to support, enthusiastically, either neutering Hussein or getting rid of him.
Your buddy dems4 thinks that the war will keep W in power forever and it is giving him hives. Well, facts are never part of his worries so, reminding him what happened the last time a Bush was riding high after a war is a waste of time; He lost his ### to some nobody from Arkansas, if anybody cares.
Hell, that alone should get y'all to throw in your support!
Colin Powell is a great leader. He makes sure we crept along in 1991 as well as now before launching any war. He exhausts all prudent avenues of diplomacy and reason, all the while allowing time for the building of force, in '91 and now, in order to, if it comes to that, put our boys and girls in a position to not fight but to WIN. The case can be made that he is the biggest hawk of them all because if you end up with him wanting to take action against you, well, he’s bringing the WHOLE can. With my boy in Korea, I love this guy.
Our current Prez is doing a good job because he does not have to do what his Sec State says. W is doing well because he is leading, IE, actually making the best possible choices based on what his people are giving him. You guys object to tone apparently because y'all finish every sentence with "BUT I do support the war on terror and Iraq if..."
If what?
Some in here claim the UN is all that and a bag of Fritos but then decry Bush for doing the very thing you want. We simply are working with the UN and the world while retaining our right to independent action if WE (US) deem it necessary. None of your side argues against that, only that somehow Bushing is up to no good WHILE doing what you want. It comes off to me just like it sounds.
Are you all gonna be disappointed if there is no actual fighting? Can you not see Iraqis, in droves, choosing their own life and welfare of their families over Hussein? They are being given plenty of time to think about it and every day we grow stronger the outcome more certain, they weaker as we assemble.
You guys constantly come off as seeming to think that Hussein, with his record, is somehow a reasonable person who we could deal with peaceably if not for OUR leadership, all the while, savaging that leadership and being as unreasonable as possible.
Maybe it's just me?
We spent over 40 years of ups and downs since WWII with our military strength.
Some periods we were very aggressive around the globe. Some not. Sometimes our armed forces were not all they could be. Some times they were damned close.
All this inconsistency because we have a regular, steady, peaceful turnover of power in our country. We not only survive this but we prosper with this because, while it ain't perfect, it is by far the best political system going.
Because of this we can easily do as you suggest and leave names out. It is us, US. No one person can do too many great, or terrible things, because of our system.
Do you remember when WE went and started bombing the Serbs in the 90's? Do you remember how rather sudden it all got going?
Our current situation has been criticized as going way to fast...or dragging until the election or this or that. Iraq has simply been an issue to this President since the campaign.
Back to Serbia. Remember we just HAD to get going because 100's of thousands were being butchered? Well, a case could have been made that we risked far more with the Russians than we ever will risk with Hussein. The Serbs are rather close with Russians. In fact, the Serbs were our allies as well against Hitler. The people we ran in to save, the Muslims, were in lock step with the Nazis in WWII. Do you think we did wrong then?
The point I'm trying to get around to is that I just don't understand the reluctance on your part to support, enthusiastically, either neutering Hussein or getting rid of him.
Your buddy dems4 thinks that the war will keep W in power forever and it is giving him hives. Well, facts are never part of his worries so, reminding him what happened the last time a Bush was riding high after a war is a waste of time; He lost his ### to some nobody from Arkansas, if anybody cares.
Hell, that alone should get y'all to throw in your support!
Colin Powell is a great leader. He makes sure we crept along in 1991 as well as now before launching any war. He exhausts all prudent avenues of diplomacy and reason, all the while allowing time for the building of force, in '91 and now, in order to, if it comes to that, put our boys and girls in a position to not fight but to WIN. The case can be made that he is the biggest hawk of them all because if you end up with him wanting to take action against you, well, he’s bringing the WHOLE can. With my boy in Korea, I love this guy.
Our current Prez is doing a good job because he does not have to do what his Sec State says. W is doing well because he is leading, IE, actually making the best possible choices based on what his people are giving him. You guys object to tone apparently because y'all finish every sentence with "BUT I do support the war on terror and Iraq if..."
If what?
Some in here claim the UN is all that and a bag of Fritos but then decry Bush for doing the very thing you want. We simply are working with the UN and the world while retaining our right to independent action if WE (US) deem it necessary. None of your side argues against that, only that somehow Bushing is up to no good WHILE doing what you want. It comes off to me just like it sounds.
Are you all gonna be disappointed if there is no actual fighting? Can you not see Iraqis, in droves, choosing their own life and welfare of their families over Hussein? They are being given plenty of time to think about it and every day we grow stronger the outcome more certain, they weaker as we assemble.
You guys constantly come off as seeming to think that Hussein, with his record, is somehow a reasonable person who we could deal with peaceably if not for OUR leadership, all the while, savaging that leadership and being as unreasonable as possible.
Maybe it's just me?