Three Ways The Dems Are Looking Bad

Boones6433

New Member
I don't disagree with getting Hussein out of power - and you point out the whole oil issue, but that wasn't even a factor going in, I thought it was to find the WMD and to save the Iraqi people.

I also understand that North Korea may not be able to nuke the U.S. but that have outright stated that they have these weapons and basically told the U.S. to shove it.

Off Topic - any thoughts on the status of credit in America today?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This is a complete waste of...

...time because facts are not an acceptable argument it seems, but, I got a few minutes to waste.

During Bush's big "rush" to war, you all know, the campaign in 2000 and then the almost 30 months before he actually took action, Saddam Hussein could have, at any time, stopped us cold in terms of using force. How?

Oh, please, we agree on the answer to that, yes?

boone, you are making the argument, as I understand it, that we should have waited on Iraq until they were in the position NK is in; nuke able, a position that could make it much more expensive in violence to take them down, right?
 

Boones6433

New Member
boone, you are making the argument, as I understand it, that we should have waited on Iraq until they were in the position NK is in; nuke able, a position that could make it much more expensive in violence to take them down, right?

My original argument was just one that it seems silly to attack one enemy on the basis that they might have WMD, while another potential enemy blatantly states they have WMD. I haven't followed the entire situation as closely as it appears others on here have and I'm learning more from this board. I also wonder what happened with Bin Ladin?

All I know is that I would personally be more concerned about someone threatening me that told me they had a gun versus someone that I only thought had a gun.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Boones, if you didn't believe Clinton when he said (says) that Iraq had WMD, and you don't believe Bush when HE says the same thing, there's nothing to talk about. You're living in an alternate reality.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Good, you haven't been...

...following this. Here you go:

Saddam sux's total ###, wants to be the next Saladin of the Arab world. Saladin unfied the Arab tribes some 1500 years ago (?) and is a legendary great leader in history. Thing is Saladin was not a vicious animal like the Hussein boys.

In the process, the road to "greatness", Saddam threatens the free flow of oil on the world market at market prices. This threatens the stability and predictability of our economy as energy problems are like dominos, we may not get much from Iraq but the effects resonate worldwide, a national security issue. "...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" stuff like that.

Whether you like Bush 41 or not Hussein promised to abide by UN rules (no nasty weapons, inspections to prove it) to keep his ### from being removed permanently.

For 12 years he has been dicking around. Clinton never felt it was a big deal though he constantly said it was. The UN felt it wasn't a big deal though they constantly said it was. They resolved to use force many times if compliance was not given. BOO.

W campaigned on kicking Iraqs ### (making them do what they agreed to do). He is now about done kicking their ### and, hopefully, the country will persue a decent, lawful society absent mass murderers. Hussien could have stopped it at ANY point by keeping his word to the UN. Somehow, that he didn't is W's fault.

This, dead Husseins, will help stabilize the region, having two democracies in the area. This will help stabilize the free flow of oil. This will help root out terrorists as our way of life (McDonalds, Hollywood, fishing shows, the NFL, beer and political argument forums where you don't get shot) slowly take hold in the area.

That last, free speech is the biggee. Soon, we will be able to have plenty of native born Iraqi Smalltowns bitching idly about every little thing without fear of being run through a blender.

Saddam's WMD program is (IS) based on fighting hoards of Iranians and is of negligible actual threat to us in terms of his military actually using them on us. He was told fact certain if he gassed us in '91 he would be nuked to oblivion. Fear works.

It, WMD, are a threat when you factor that an Iraqi intelligence officer coordinated the first World Trade Center attack. They are a threat when you consider the terrorist training camps in Iraq.
They are a threat when you consider Hussein tried to assassinate Bush 41. They are a threat when you consider the Daschle anthrax letters.

Somehow, unless we have perfect proof, people who hate Bush 43 cannot see, in any way shape or form, how Hussien might help terrorists attack us if he thought he could get away with it. Why would he think that? See the last 12 years.

These same people are now raising holy hell that the CIA, FBI, NSA, NIS, PDQ, CCC, PBS and whomever else couldn't put the pieces together pre 9/11. All they want is to attack Bush in any way because they hate him. They just do. They hate him more than Rush Limbaugh. They hate him more than John Wayne. They hate him more than Reagan. They hate him way worse then Saddam.

The thing is, they could focus on attacking Bush on good stuff, like the economy, taxes, missile defense, Social Security et al while getting a share of credit for getting rid of Hussein. They don't want that.

You tell me.

I think it is Beaten Voter Syndrome inflicted for 8 years and to this day by Bubba C.

It's the only constant.

Any more questions?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by SmallTown
Considering the conversations I have seen in the past, the responses to my post are not unexpected. We see things differently, and it seems like this argument comes up almost as much as the "somd sucks/ somd is great" debates.
Of course they are the same to you because many like you (and possibly you) haven’t bothered to read the legislature that Congress placed on the President’s desk. The link to it will follow, you can research all the UN resolutions mentioned to see why this had been a 12 year thorn that needed taken care of. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107Vr32eB::
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Ooops...

...Bin Laden.

He's probably dead. Buried under a mountain of rubble in a cave. We'll see if he pops up soon. If he ain't, as long as Shrub is in charge, he gonna die. Same with Saddam.

Their only hope right now is a Democratic President because they hate W more than the bad guys. Hussein should be dead within a month or so. Hopefully sooner, so, absent a quick Impeachment, he's SOL. Osama is used to a lower standard of life. Maybe he can keep it up, running.

Oh yeah. We'll be attacked again here at home. Sooner or later. I just like that we kill as many perps as possible in response. It lessons, I think, the violence on us, which is back to the "provide for the common defense" theme so foreign to some major politcal parties.

Did you catch Prez Clinton saying on Larry King "we should back America on this one"?
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I just can't stop thinking about Neville Chamberlin everytime I watch the Democrats debate. We've finally got a President who gets the fact that you can't keep burying your head in the sand or making deals with terrorists, murderers, and thugs, and hope that everything will turn out rosy in the end.

That the Dems are saying that they wouldn't have supported deposing Hussein because of those 16 words in the SOTU address (even though they had voted to support the effort BEFORE the remarks were made) just reinforces why people don't think Dems will be tough on the bad guys.

I still don't think we'll be attacked by any terrorists in the US any time soon. I think Bush has sent a pretty clear message to folks about what happens when you mess around on US terra firma, and I doubt any terrorist leaders are too anxious to take up the fun-filled life of OBL or Hussein. It's pretty obvious now that Bush isn't going to bluster or blow up empty buildings as payback.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Neville...

...reflected his people and his day.

Most of Europe had fresh memories of The Great War that pretty much precluded having barely any military power at all afterwards. They knew that it was all kicked of for no real reason other than extensive, precise war plans that had to be used or lost. It was a different age when it was unthinkable for nations to speak to each other in any way other than face to face. Killing technology was so far out ahead of the ways and customs of the politics of the day.

Of course, there was a nation whose memories of the Great War and it's outcome pretty much guaranteed building military power.

You simply could get nowhere arguing peace through strength in the 1930's except in Germany. Everybody was strong in 1914. Look what that wrought. Reasonable mindset at the time.

Today however, even Neville Chamberlain would look upon the Democrats and shake his head.
 
Top