Ambassador Joseph Wilson...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Spoiled
Active Member
terrorism isnt going to go away regardless of what we do, just like serial killers wont go away... neither will cults...itsbob said:
and we did sign the geneva convention: http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020212.html
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This is amazing...
...are you serious?
Saddam was a constant, non stop threat to stability in a region we have serious national security concerns; free flow of oil at market prices. Say what you will about oil and energy; in the near term oil stability is important to every US citizen. He was also developing WMD's. This is not up for debate; it is fact. If you argue it turned out it wasn't as serious or advanced as advertised, then why nota 'yeah!' like the firemen do when it's just s brush fire and not the whole house? Also ask yourself; where did his WMD's go? Also aske yourself "wasn't it obvious Saddam was a 'when' not 'if' problem. There you have the essence of the Iraq War resolution.
Second, Osama and company are explicit; they declared war on us in 1997 with the goal of international Shaira or Holy rule...not just for Islamic nations but for ALL. Ask yourself if it isn't likely that people who used suicide as a weapon would likely use WMD's if they get a chance.
Now. Who's gonna deal with all this before it gets worse than airliners crashing into civilian targets?
The UN?
How can you sit there and worry that WE are becoming THEM???
Spoiled said:
...are you serious?
Saddam was a constant, non stop threat to stability in a region we have serious national security concerns; free flow of oil at market prices. Say what you will about oil and energy; in the near term oil stability is important to every US citizen. He was also developing WMD's. This is not up for debate; it is fact. If you argue it turned out it wasn't as serious or advanced as advertised, then why nota 'yeah!' like the firemen do when it's just s brush fire and not the whole house? Also ask yourself; where did his WMD's go? Also aske yourself "wasn't it obvious Saddam was a 'when' not 'if' problem. There you have the essence of the Iraq War resolution.
Second, Osama and company are explicit; they declared war on us in 1997 with the goal of international Shaira or Holy rule...not just for Islamic nations but for ALL. Ask yourself if it isn't likely that people who used suicide as a weapon would likely use WMD's if they get a chance.
Now. Who's gonna deal with all this before it gets worse than airliners crashing into civilian targets?
The UN?
How can you sit there and worry that WE are becoming THEM???
You just choose to be selective in your understanding of the very article you post.Spoiled said:
That is very definitive. It does not say by lack of visible sign and combination location and type of weapon. You can't have it both ways. The insurgents must conform to the rules or they do not have to be treated according to the rules. One of the problems our troops have is being able to distinguish an insurgent from a normal Iraqi on the street. If the insurgents were wearing a badge that distinguished them, they would already be wiped out.
Last edited:
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Actually terrorists DO go away.. look at Germany and Western Europe after WWII.. there were insurgents, and terrorists aplenty.. and they lived with them, and until the 70's they were still making their presence known.. car bombs, pipe bombs and the like..Spoiled said:
Lets see, we had the Red brigade, the Baader Meinhopf.. just to name two.. and they have all basically have become instinct. But to do so, you don't capture them and put them in prison, you hunt them down and kill them, they can not be rehabiliatated..
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Spoiled said:
I often wonder if we should. I went through SERE school when I was in the Navy, and was given a very light exposure to what life might be like as a prisioner. The main point of teh training was you should fully expect to be tortured, even though torture is banned by most "civilized" countries.
The truth of the matter is that the countries that actually believe that torture is wrong are not the countries we would go to war with. We go to war with countries that don't believe in human rights, yet alone the rights of enemy combatants, hence our folks have gotten tortured by Germans, Japanese, Russians, Chinese, Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, Iranians, Cambodians, and on and on.
While I see the point of those who fear we will become that which we are fighting, the reality is that when you are at war you should be fighting to win, and the key element to winning is destroying your enemy's desire to fight. Right now every enemy we face knows that if they get captured that they'll be treated well, not tortured, not beheaded, etc., which actually gives them a great deal of power over us. They know that they need not provide any information, they need not heed threats, and that if they decide to keep silent or even to escape that there's nothing very damaging that we'll do to them. That's no way to fight a war. I would much rather have the enemy fearing that getting captured normally means getting your head stuck on a pike if you don't cooperate.
This does seem that a "take no prisoners" policy would be best. Saves money too. A bullet or two vs. shelter, food, amenities, guards, and fighting the ACLU and Democrat BS. I bet the savings would be huge.Bruzilla said:
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Some good reading from IBD...
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20051028
Also, they had a great editorial on "Poor Valerie". It made some great points on who really deserves some blame. Essentially, it laid it at Valeries feet for sending her husband out to do a job which she has been shown to have a pre-conceived bias in by the Senate Intelligence Committee's Pre-War Intelligence Report (i.e. her admitting sending Wilson and saying he was going to investigate this "crazy report"). It also details all the information Wilson found which has been proven factual that goes against Wilson's public diatribe. But back to the subject...
Essentially, since she sent him and then let him go on a massive publicity stint (NYT op-ed, cozying up to Kerry in the election, etc... ) that she should have realized she was being made very public by association; especially so since she should know politics and that people would find out who sent him. She set herself up to fail if she was that worried about her identity. However, the reality is she apparently wasn't very worried and neither was Wilson.
I would say they were right on the mark. Anyone who is that worried about theirs or their spouses covert status would not be placing themselves up to be a media poster boy (this was before anyone was outed) and shining a spotlight on themselves in such grand fashion.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20051028
Also, they had a great editorial on "Poor Valerie". It made some great points on who really deserves some blame. Essentially, it laid it at Valeries feet for sending her husband out to do a job which she has been shown to have a pre-conceived bias in by the Senate Intelligence Committee's Pre-War Intelligence Report (i.e. her admitting sending Wilson and saying he was going to investigate this "crazy report"). It also details all the information Wilson found which has been proven factual that goes against Wilson's public diatribe. But back to the subject...
Essentially, since she sent him and then let him go on a massive publicity stint (NYT op-ed, cozying up to Kerry in the election, etc... ) that she should have realized she was being made very public by association; especially so since she should know politics and that people would find out who sent him. She set herself up to fail if she was that worried about her identity. However, the reality is she apparently wasn't very worried and neither was Wilson.
I would say they were right on the mark. Anyone who is that worried about theirs or their spouses covert status would not be placing themselves up to be a media poster boy (this was before anyone was outed) and shining a spotlight on themselves in such grand fashion.
I agree. And I get worn out with crybabies who worry incessantly that some terrorist isn't getting his daily Flintstone multivitamin shaped like purple Bam Bam.Bruzilla said:
These folks are saying, loud and clear, that they support terrorism and don't want the US to put and end to it. Then they protest and say that they are just as patriotic as the next guy. Yeah, but patriotism to what country?
UN Charter, Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Since Iraq was regularly and routinely targeting and firing upon our aircraft supporting the UN mandated "no-fly zones", and they were continually threatening to attack our nation, our full scale attack upon them was within the bounds of the UN Charter as I read it. Furthermore the failure of Iraq to comply with the "last chance agreement" for full disclosure and proof of WMD disarming called for drastic action upon that nation if they failed to comply within the allotted time and that is what they got. It was all within the guidlines that the UN dictated that we follow.
Since Iraq was regularly and routinely targeting and firing upon our aircraft supporting the UN mandated "no-fly zones", and they were continually threatening to attack our nation, our full scale attack upon them was within the bounds of the UN Charter as I read it. Furthermore the failure of Iraq to comply with the "last chance agreement" for full disclosure and proof of WMD disarming called for drastic action upon that nation if they failed to comply within the allotted time and that is what they got. It was all within the guidlines that the UN dictated that we follow.
What is your major Spoiled? Law? Poli-Sci? With your comprehension of legal documents, you may want to choose something like ... Art. No offense meant to any artists. Spoiled might not do well in that field either.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
vraiblonde said:
Vrai, where I think that you and others are going astray is that all these protests have nothing to do with anyone's patriotism, worry about the treatment of POWs, concern for our fellow man, etc. If they were you would have heard even more horrific howling coming from these same people when Serbs were ethnically cleansing their lands of Muslims, or whenever whichever tribe in Africa started wiping out the other. But you don't hear these crys, or see these marches, over these far worse crimes. Why? Because these people are only on the pro-POW/anti-war fairytale swiftboat to Fonda/Kerryland because they want to make Bush look bad. You can argue with these people all day, and all you're doing is wasting your time. They don't want peace, they don't want fair treatment for POWs, they want Bush out of office.
I disagree. I can make a case that there's a huge conspiracy to overthrow the US afoot. Our media is in on it, college professors are in on it, and Democrat politicans are in on it. I wouldn't even have to embellish or make anything up.Bruzilla said:
Why else would liberals be so hell bent on these wild stories about outing CIA agents and secret prisons? Why else would they completely ignore the IWR, that several of them voted for themselves, so spew insanities like "illegal war"?
WHY do they hate Bush so much? There's no reason for this kind of passion, other than that he is getting in the way of them toppling the US.
There was a time when I entertained that conspiracy theory for my own amusement, but now I'm beginning to wonder.....
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bruz...
You and I can both hang our hats on that and hope that that is the story at the end of the day but they're not saying 'We can win the war sooner, better, right now."
Everything they are doing and saying is the equivalent of standing around while firemen try to put out a gigantic fire and:
1. Threaten and hold up money needed for hoses, ladders, food for the firemen, gas for the engines and so forth.
2. Demand investigations, in th emiddle of the fire, as to how we got to the point of putting out the fire; if people were called in the proper order, given or told the exact correct information and so on and so forth. This takes energy away from the work at hand and implicitly makes people dependent on leaderships public opinions as to whether we should have just let the building burn down. This is a distraction to the firemen as well.
3. They are standing there, as fireman after fireman is consumed by the flames, screaming out loud for all to hear that the boss lied abotu this fire, that it does not need to be put out, that they, the firemen, are dying for ther personal gain of the boss.
Any way you slice it, Democrats are providing aid and comfort and, frankly, giving hope to the bad guys to fight for the ONLY way they can win; beat US public opinion.
The worst of it is that they are the ones doing the lying.
Like I just posted; Bush lied! No WMD's!
What's next?
Free Saddam.
That's a damn far cry from BEAT BUSH!
You and I can both hang our hats on that and hope that that is the story at the end of the day but they're not saying 'We can win the war sooner, better, right now."
Everything they are doing and saying is the equivalent of standing around while firemen try to put out a gigantic fire and:
1. Threaten and hold up money needed for hoses, ladders, food for the firemen, gas for the engines and so forth.
2. Demand investigations, in th emiddle of the fire, as to how we got to the point of putting out the fire; if people were called in the proper order, given or told the exact correct information and so on and so forth. This takes energy away from the work at hand and implicitly makes people dependent on leaderships public opinions as to whether we should have just let the building burn down. This is a distraction to the firemen as well.
3. They are standing there, as fireman after fireman is consumed by the flames, screaming out loud for all to hear that the boss lied abotu this fire, that it does not need to be put out, that they, the firemen, are dying for ther personal gain of the boss.
Any way you slice it, Democrats are providing aid and comfort and, frankly, giving hope to the bad guys to fight for the ONLY way they can win; beat US public opinion.
The worst of it is that they are the ones doing the lying.
Like I just posted; Bush lied! No WMD's!
What's next?
Free Saddam.
That's a damn far cry from BEAT BUSH!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
vraiblonde said:
Sorry, but the trend evidence doesn't support your theory. As I said before, these same people who are out there attacking President Bush had no issues with the US using force when Clinton was in office, and voiced no concern when foreign leaders used force to quell or conquer. So, it's difficult to make the claim that they're anti-war when the only war they're against is Bush's war. Also, you would have been hard pressed to know that the CIA even existed duing the 1990s. Despite intelligence failure after failure - WTC, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc., all the folks who are screaming about intelligence failures said nothing. But again, Bush wasn't president then.
So why are Dems and Libs out to get Bush? First, he beat out the heir apparent to their Camelot II. They had their hearts set on another eight years of having things their way, and Bush zapped them. Second, Bush is the son of another President they have a strong loathing for. Not so much because of what Bush Sr. did while Pres, but more so because he's a living/breathing reminder of Reagan... who they really despised.
Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, they hate Bush because he's the absolute worst possible threat to their power base - he's a president who actually tries to follow through on his campaign promises and prefers solving issues over campaigning on them. Medicare Part D may well be a huge waste of money, but it stripped away one of the Dems' biggest across-the-board campaign issues. How much ground did Kerry lose when he couldn't claim his elderly mom was having to eat dog food because her prescription drugs were so expensive... sitting across the barren table from Gore's mom sharing a can of Alpo? The World will never know. If Bush fixes the Social Security issue, even only partly, the Dems are toast as that is their last major connection to seniors, one of their largest voting blocks. They've lost gun control, they're losing the environmental moral highground due to gasoline prices, so what's left for them to run on? Gay rights and abortion, and they know they come up snake eyes on those issues. So they have to protest against everything that Bush does. If Bush shoots POWs, they are against shooting POWs. If Bush wants to free all the POWs, they are against freeing POWs. They don't really care if their arguments are consistent with previous positions, nor do they care if their arguments hurt America. What is truly vital is to keep Bush distracted and off-track.
The Dems don't have much going for them now, but they're best strength is consistency. They have it and we don't. You can tell Al Sharpton a million times that the Tawana Brawley case was a hoax, show him reams of evidence, and he'll keep swearing it's all true. You can tell many Dems that Clinton's impeachment was about lying and not sex, and they'll tell you it was about sex. You can explain to Dems all you want about the truth of the Niger yellowcake issue, even show them the letter written by Wilson stating that he never disproved the Brit's claims, and still they'll insist that Bush lied. The Dems understand very well that lies become the truth if they are repeated enough, and Republicans always back down. Lie about who was responsible for New Orleans, and Bush says "yeah, it was our fault." Idiot! Lie about who's responsible for black poverty, and Republicans say "yeah, we're partly to blame and here's a lot of money." Idiots!! Say that the US is "torturing" prioners by making them pose in S&M poses, and even a Republican who really was tortured and beaten will push to convict some poor Army gal and inform the enemy that they have nothing to fear from us. IDIOTS!!!
Case in point: Dems in LA screw the pooch and disaster results from hurricane Katrina. They, wisely, blame Bush, who unwisely accepts partial blame in order to show that he's a big guy and willing to be a team player. That partial blame gets turned into total blame, and the next thing you know you have Democrats turning their failure into a huge political success. Then we have hurricane Wilma come through FL, and now that we've allowed the Dems to politicize hurricane relief, and now no American can survive a single day without food, water, and TP, FEMA rushes and pre-positions thousands of trucks full of supplies to Jacksonville, rather than sticking to the plan of waiting for the storm to pass, accessing the needs, and then delivering the goods. So they send hundreds of water trucks to areas that don't need water, they rush truckloads of food to areas that don't need food, and a lot of people who do need stuff aren't getting it because there are hundreds of trucks sitting at NAS Jacksonville awaiting orders while trucks are returning from southern Florida still fully loaded because their cargos weren't needed wherever they went. And guess who's attacking Jeb Bush and FEMA for this? The Democrats... the one who caused the problem in the first place.
And why do we do this? Because a lot of Republican idiots think that the Democrats just don't understand us, or that we're not communicating well with them, or that we need to be more diverse, open, and caring. The Democrats understand us, they hear us, and they know exactly what they're doing. I just wish Republicans would stick to the friggin' game plan.
I don't think it's that simple. I'd like to go even deeper and ask WHY did they hate Reagan so much? What did that guy do that was so horrifying? I remember when they were screaming their heads off over MAD and trickle-down economics, but when it was proven that that stuff actually works, they should have shut up about it. But they didn't.Bruzilla said:
Why?
I will suggest that the powers that be didn't blast Clinton for putting a crater in Baghdad because they knew his heart wasn't in it. They knew he was just making a show of strength, then would back off and business would go on as usual. And that's exactly what happened.
I can't believe that 50% of the country is stupid enough to believe that terrorists would leave us alone if we "leave them alone". History show that that is completely untrue and too ridiculous to even consider. The terrorists' own words tell us that they will never leave us alone until we, along with Israel, are eradicated from the planet.
Why do these Leftists persist in beliefs that are demonstrably false?
I think it's part of a bigger plot. And I think half of us go along with it because we're too ignorant and lazy to think for ourselves.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
vraiblonde said:
You forgot to mention how most leftists are still certain communism works.
Once again, you're gettin' your panties in a bunch because you just can't figure out how lefties can deny what's been proven over and over again to be the truth. They know what the truth is, they know what the facts are... they aren't mindless idiots. The simple truth is that they want to be in charge of things, and they cannot get there if Bush continues to negate all of their issues. At that point all they've got left is gays and abortionists, and they can't win with that. All they can do is attack, attack, attack Bush and the Republicans and keep making them look bad. It's not about beliefs, it's about regaining power.
As for believing that 50% of Americans think that terrorists will leave us alone, there are a lot more than that who believe in UFOs. About that many who think there might be some truth to the rumor that we never really landed on the moon. More than that who believe that the Vietnam War was a waste of time, and that McCarthy never found any Communists. Like Democrat Tommy Lee Jones said in "Men In Black", "A person is smart; people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Democrats know extremely well that people can be dumb and panicy, and they play them like a fiddle. Who needs the truth when you can convince most people of just about anything if the "right" people tell them enough times.