Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'

[flywithastick]

Re: Attention Leftist Marxist Pigs

Stop bemoaning the fact that not all will share your wider liberal analysis of the war. Greens, socialists, anarchists etc. ...

Nicely put, Hippie!

 

[TXCAP4228]

Re: Re: Attention Leftist Marxist Pigs

I never said they were evil...just stupid.

I wish we could elect a president who has everything:

George I: terriffic foreign policy, no domestic policy.
Slick Willie: terriffic domestic policy, no foreign policy.
George II: no policies of any kind.

Typhoon1244, I am disappointed. To say that W has no policies of any kind is to spout the same Bush-bashing-band-wagon one liner crap that really isn't true.

In fact, if W. has no policies of any kind then what are Daschel and Kennedy and Pelosi standing up and yelling so much against. The policies are there, and well stated. Your problem, and I hate to be blunt about it, is that you refuse to accept that policies you may dislike are actually policies worthy of discourse.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Re: Re: Attention Leftist Marxist Pigs

Originally posted by TXCAP4228
Typhoon1244, I am disappointed. To say that W has no policies of any kind is to spout the same Bush-bashing-band-wagon one liner crap that really isn't true.

...and I'm sorry you're disappointed...and I'm exaggerating a bit. But to tell you the truth, I've been on the "Bush-bashing" bandwagon since George the First helped Frank Lorenzo take Eastern Air Lines apart. Don't get the idea that I'm a fair-weather Bush-basher. I've hated him since before the election.

George W. Bush's most valuable trait is that he's the son of a former president. If it wasn't for that, none of us would ever have heard about him. He's a nincompoop...and his utter inability to handle the "War on Terror" is the result. To paraphrase General Patton, George II is so distracted by Saddam that eventually Al Queda is going to sneak up and hit us over the head with a sock-full of sh_t.

Do you know what percentage of ship-type containers are inspected prior to entering the U.S.? Two percent! (Source: NTSB.) Is that okay with you?

If a nuke or significant bio-chemical weapon goes off in the continental U.S. anytime in the near future, Geroge W. Bush needs to be imprisoned for dereliction of duty. Keeping Saddam from building them doesn't matter if they can't get into the country anyway.

 

[Archer]

2) The Israelis have demonstrated convincingly that the Palestinian authority recruited terrorists from their OWN YOUNG PEOPLE to try to kill innocent Israeli civilians. Their have been instances of Israeli SCHOOL BUSSES being bombed killing children. Somehow Israel continues to try and negotiate.

Maybe, but most of the terrorists that commit themselves to suicide bombing are from islamic extremist groups that have different means AND goals that the Palestinian people, like Islamic Jihad, Hammas and Al-aqsa Martyr's Brigade.

The west and Israel criticizes Arafat for suicide bombings, yet the poor old man has little control of what his people do. How can you control a mass of people whoare filled with hatred since they first opened their eyes in this world?

And don't forget to talk about Israel's crimes against humanity while you talk of "Palestinian" terrorists, which don't usually reflect the wish of the palestinian people, but rather that of islamic extremists.

Israel has and is currently killing innocent Palestinians, every day, children and women included. For example, the massacre at Janin. Sharon is to many a terrorist himself, and his "terrorists" are shielded by the tag "IDF" instead of openly showing themselves like Islamic Jihad and others.

There's plenty of footage showing IDF soliders treating Palestinans with hatred, hitting them, shotting at them and what not. So look at both sides of the coin, not just one.

This one is easy. If we reveal the sources of inteligence we risk exposing our sources and methods for obtaining that inteligence. If we do that, these sources will no longer be useful to us. The very lives of those assets may even be at stake. You need to think about that.

I'm sure the CIA can protect it's agents while informing the world with the information that is a right for everyone to know, that is even remotely involved in this war against Iraq.

1) Are you saying that if Iraq has WMD then we would be justified in going in? It sounds like you are.
2) You say that we should not fight in order to preserve world stability but at the begining of your post you talk about the fact that terrorists may still come after us. This is a contradiction. How can there be stability in the world while we are at risk of WMD attacks against us or our allies?

I'm saying that INFORMATION is needed, and PROOF is needed, before commiting millions of people into danger and many countries into war.

If Saddam has even one WMD, he must be taken out by any means.

What I don't understand is how can a powerful army like the US army, not be able to send it's Special Forces, covert, in secrecy, and using snipers, take out Saddam, without an Aircraft Carrier even getting into the Persian Gulf?

But if Saddam doesn' have these weapons (remeber, Iraq was devestated in 1991, and Saddam woudl have used mass destruction weapons if you could, but he didn't, why do you think? he didn't have any!

But think about the consquences of this war, before you say it's required.

The world wide economy will sink. The US economy is at a low as it is, with the Euro being much stronger than the Dollar being a sign. The economies of the supporting countries, and those surroundign Iraq will sink as well. Turkey, one of the key countries for a US invasion, who is going to host 80,000 US troops and provide a crap load of air bases, is esitmated to loose 100 billion dollars, and the US will only pay 5 or so billion of it.

And will the US allow Turkey to get some of the oil from Iraq? No, of course not, they are the main participants, they get it all, and get stronger, richer, while the rest of the world sinks into an economic crisis, and gets poorer, they get richer, build more arms, and care even less about other countries..


So once again THINK about the CONSEQUENCES! The huge ecnomic and political consequences that this war will have.

You will suffer from it, as Jet A fuel and AvGas get more expensive. Peopel in the middle east, in Europe will suffer from it.

Not to mention the increased hatred against America by the world community. Do not deny that this hatred doesn't exist. Americans are not viewed as angels and saviours by the Arab and other Eastern people.

More hatred will cause more terrorist acts.

And terrorism is one of the most difficult and complicated things to fight against. You got no visible army to defeat...it's invisible, insidious, hidden and you don't know when or where or how it will strike...

and it aims civilians, not military...it strikes right to the heart of people, like 9/11

AND THIS WAR, is going to increase terrorist acts...it's logical.

But once again, I see your points about destroying terrorist camps, and getting rid of WMD if Saddam has any...

but we don't know this yet, and as I've outlined here, the risks and consequences are too grave to be ignored...

the answer is not simple. If you think it is, you are not as informed as you should be, and have not analysed the situation enough.

Archer

 

[TXCAP4228]

Archer and Typhoon1244, I want to thank you for a fair and reasonable discussion.

Originally posted by Archer
Maybe, but most of the terrorists that commit themselves to suicide bombing are from islamic extremist groups that have different means AND goals that the Palestinian people, like Islamic Jihad, Hammas and Al-aqsa Martyr's Brigade.

The west and Israel criticizes Arafat for suicide bombings, yet the poor old man has little control of what his people do. How can you control a mass of people whoare filled with hatred since they first opened their eyes in this world?

1) My intent with the part that this was in reply to was to show that Israel continues to try and negotiate in good faith. By your answer I think you may agree with that.
2) Your assertion that I Arafat has little control over his own people does two things. First, it proves my point that the Palestinians continue to fail in selecting a governing body or a group the speaks for them. Second, I disagree that Arafat has no control over the homicide bombings. Israel has shown with documentation that Al-Aqusa has been funded by the Palestinian authority.

Originally posted by Archer
And don't forget to talk about Israel's crimes against humanity while you talk of "Palestinian" terrorists, which don't usually reflect the wish of the palestinian people, but rather that of islamic extremists.

Israel has and is currently killing innocent Palestinians, every day, children and women included. For example, the massacre at Janin. Sharon is to many a terrorist himself, and his "terrorists" are shielded by the tag "IDF" instead of openly showing themselves like Islamic Jihad and others.

There's plenty of footage showing IDF soliders treating Palestinans with hatred, hitting them, shotting at them and what not. So look at both sides of the coin, not just one.

1) What you are saying is pure and unadulterated Bu!!sh!t. There was no masacre at Janin. Even the media who went in (the Right Wing Conservative pro-Israel hardliners from our media - you see my sarcasm here...) said that the Palestinian claims were BS.
2) The arguments that Sharon or some current Israeli generals are war criminals is BS and has never been substantiated. The Palestinians have glommed onto some nice cacth phrases that carry weight in the West and tried to use them. I encourage you to actually try to research the assertions you are making.
3) You say that Israel kills Palestinians. I hear this a lot. You will have to actually show me cases of Israelis slaughtering innocents because I don't see it. What I see is Israeli soldiers returning fire when they are attacked.

Archer, maybe if the bus stop down the street from your home was in a war zone and you were at risk of being killed for the simple crime of being a bus passenger, you might have a different perspective.

Originally posted by Archer
I'm sure the CIA can protect it's agents while informing the world with the information that is a right for everyone to know, that is even remotely involved in this war against Iraq.

I'm saying that INFORMATION is needed, and PROOF is needed, before commiting millions of people into danger and many countries into war.

1) Our sources are not protected if those who seek to harm us find ways of circumventing our inteligence gathering.
2) Our sources are not protected if an Iraqi scientist who tells us something is summarliy executed and his wife and children raped and tortured.
3) You ask for information and proof. Do you remember the Cuban Missle crisis? When we showed photo's taken from U-2's at the UN security council our detractors called them fakes and forgeries. We can show our entire hand and we will never convince our detractors - or even those in America who choose to believe that Sadaam is more trustworthy than President Bush.

Originally posted by Archer
If Saddam has even one WMD, he must be taken out by any means.

We agree! Be careful, you're on record now.

Originally posted by Archer
What I don't understand is how can a powerful army like the US army, not be able to send it's Special Forces, covert, in secrecy, and using snipers, take out Saddam, without an Aircraft Carrier even getting into the Persian Gulf?

But if Saddam doesn' have these weapons (remeber, Iraq was devestated in 1991, and Saddam woudl have used mass destruction weapons if you could, but he didn't, why do you think? he didn't have any!

1) Security around Sadam is pretty much unassailable. You'd be surprised. It would have to be just to keep him from being killed by his own people. How would a bunch of Americans get close enough? The US is formidable, but we're not magicians.
2) I won't discus whether Iraq used WMD during Gulf War1. However, its fair to say that if he directly assaulted us we would have retaliated with WMD (and we only use the nuclear kind). At that time I think he calculated that he could stay in power without using them.
3) Yes, I think there is a risk of him using WMD's this time. However, after 8 years of inaction by the previous administration its time to pay the piper. We (I use the word "we" loosely - I mean to say that our former president) let him have all the time he wanted and didn't even insist in the inspectors returning when we had the chance. Now, we have a choice to make - do we go now, or wait until he gives a nuke to a terrorist group?

Originally posted by Archer
But think about the consquences of this war, before you say it's required.

As I mentioned just above, the real question should be the consequences of not going. Ari Fleischer said yesterday (I am paraphrasing, but I posted the link to the article on this thread) that if we wait for a smoking gun it may be too late - the smoking gun may take the form of a WMD attack against us or out allies.

How can you argue with that?

Originally posted by Archer
The world wide economy will sink. The US economy is at a low as it is, with the Euro being much stronger than the Dollar being a sign. The economies of the supporting countries, and those surroundign Iraq will sink as well. Turkey, one of the key countries for a US invasion, who is going to host 80,000 US troops and provide a crap load of air bases, is esitmated to loose 100 billion dollars, and the US will only pay 5 or so billion of it.

And will the US allow Turkey to get some of the oil from Iraq? No, of course not, they are the main participants, they get it all, and get stronger, richer, while the rest of the world sinks into an economic crisis, and gets poorer, they get richer, build more arms, and care even less about other countries..

1) The economy is suffering because of the threat of war. When its done, it will be done. We can all move on.
2) I don't know what will happen to Iraqi oil and neither do you. Stop saying that the rich will get rich, that's ridiculous and unabashed speculation and class warfare. Don't be absurd. Here's what we DO know for sure. The Iraqi people - who do NOT currently see the benefit of their nations wealth will finally have the chance to make use of some of it. If you don't see the moral high ground in THAT, what will it take?

Originally posted by Archer
You will suffer from it, as Jet A fuel and AvGas get more expensive. Peopel in the middle east, in Europe will suffer from it.

As I said above, we will suffer more from inaction. The 8 years of the head in the sand inaction from our last president got us here. Even you have said that if Sadam has WMD he's gotta go. Would you rather wait until he declares that Iraq posesses nuclear weapons?

The risk of waiting is too high.

Originally posted by Archer
Not to mention the increased hatred against America by the world community. Do not deny that this hatred doesn't exist. Americans are not viewed as angels and saviours by the Arab and other Eastern people.

More hatred will cause more terrorist acts.

AND THIS WAR, is going to increase terrorist acts...it's logical.

I discussed this in my earlier post. For specifics you can refer back to it, but the upshot is that the Arab word hates us no matter what we do. We (America and our allies in the West) represent an openess that is antithetical to everything that the religious theocracies in that part of the world hold on to to stay in power.

Originally posted by Archer
But once again, I see your points about destroying terrorist camps, and getting rid of WMD if Saddam has any...

but we don't know this yet, and as I've outlined here, the risks and consequences are too grave to be ignored...

The risks and counsequences of waiting are worse. Besides, you and I may not know, but our government does. Colin Powell was a soldier and I KNOW he would not stay with this administration if he did not REALLY BELIEVE that war was necessary. I trust our leaders. It is an inteligent and reasoned trust, but it is trust.

Originally posted by Archer
the answer is not simple. If you think it is, you are not as informed as you should be, and have not analysed the situation enough.

Actually, I don't claim to be an expert. I am a student of history and of current events. I do NOT want this country to go to war. I hope that Sadaam resigns and self exiles himself to someplace and we all move on. I hope that tomorrow morning the people of Iraq do what is in their own best interest. I hope that their is a peaceful solution. However, at some point it becomes clear that these things will not happen as much as we hope for them, and the decision becomes equally clear.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention Leftist Marxist Pigs

This is a good discussion. I wish there were an icon of one face shooting a rubber band at the other.

...and I'm sorry you're disappointed...and I'm exaggerating a bit. But to tell you the truth, I've been on the "Bush-bashing" bandwagon since George the First helped Frank Lorenzo take Eastern Air Lines apart. Don't get the idea that I'm a fair-weather Bush-basher. I've hated him since before the election.

Sin's of the father, sin's of the son?? In any case, I can accept this a whole lot easier than you saying that W has no policies.

George W. Bush's most valuable trait is that he's the son of a former president. If it wasn't for that, none of us would ever have heard about him. He's a nincompoop...and his utter inability to handle the "War on Terror" is the result. To paraphrase General Patton, George II is so distracted by Saddam that eventually Al Queda is going to sneak up and hit us over the head with a sock-full of sh_t.

1) Ok, you think W's an idiot. I think he's a genius. I must be an idiot??
2) I don't think the war on terror is distracted, you and the media are. We have troops in Indonesia and the Philipines participating in the war on terror. We have troops fighting in Afghanistan TODAY. Your statement is disingenuous. Do you really believe it???
3) I posted the link yesterday on Ari Fleischer saying they have good evidence linking Iraq and Al Quaeda. I keep hearing people say its a distraction but the truth is that the people saying that are the ones who are distracted. A resolution of Iraq's WMD non-compliance IS PART OF the war on terror.

Do you know what percentage of ship-type containers are inspected prior to entering the U.S.? Two percent! (Source: NTSB.) Is that okay with you?

Of course its not.

Next question. Do you think this was a problem in 1996 or 1998 or 2000? Of course it was. How come I don't hear you Clinton Bashing?

What I DO see is that we finally have a President who is DOING something about it.

If a nuke or significant bio-chemical weapon goes off in the continental U.S. anytime in the near future, Geroge W. Bush needs to be imprisoned for dereliction of duty. Keeping Saddam from building them doesn't matter if they can't get into the country anyway.

Ohh.... You're out there now. Why wouldn't we imprison the prior President too? That's just a little too easy.

Now lets talk some reality. What percentage should be inspected? Can you come up with a plan to make these inspections and implement that plan? What do you propose?

We're gonna have to have that coca-cola sometime. I plan to shoot a rubber band at you.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention Leftist Marxist Pigs

I posted the link yesterday on Ari Fleischer saying they have good evidence linking Iraq and Al Quaeda.

If that's true, then the Administration needs to get this evidence out in the open. Now. Their continued stalling--regardless of the reasons--is eroding world support for our actions. Even the British are getting cold feet!

Maybe it'll all crystalize during the State of the Union...

Do you think [a lack of container ship inspections] was a problem in 1996 or 1998 or 2000? Of course it was. How come I don't hear you Clinton Bashing?

Things changed at 0900 ET on 9-11-2001. Failing to inspect everything that enters the United States was foolhardy before 9/11. After 9/11, it's criminal.

But if we prosecute George II and Clinton for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, we'd also have to get George I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and posthumously, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Truman. Everyone who's been involved in the Middle East since the establishment of Israel in 1948.

What I DO see is that we finally have a President who is DOING something about it.

Frisking children and old ladies in airports?

Now lets talk some reality. What percentage [of containers] should be inspected?

100%. We're at war, remember?

Can you come up with a plan to make these inspections and implement that plan? What do you propose?

I'm an airline pilot; I shouldn't have to come up with a plan. There are people in Washington who are supposed to have the brains to figure things like this out without my help.

But if you really pushed me, I'd suggest pulling our troops--and I mean everywhere--back to the infield and use them to lock our borders up so tight that no more Muhammed Attahs could even get near our country. (I can't believe I'm going to say this: maybe a draft isn't such a bad idea...) "Homeland Defense" doesn't mean squat if you don't have the people to implement. Which homeland are we defending now, Afghanistan? Iraq? South Korea?

If we restored the level of national security we had in 1944-45, the only way Al Queda would be able to attack us would be through an outright military-style attack...and we can defend against that very easily! It's a little more difficult to defend against terrorists working within our borders!

George W. Bush needs a bright, shining, victorious war--complete with Saddam's body impaled on a spear--to insure his re-election. He's forgotten all about Homeland Defense and September 11th.

Bring it on. I've got a whole drawer full of rubber bands!

Tell me this: the Civil Air Patrol--regardless of what people think--has good people. Why can't we lean on them a little more on this Homeland Defense stuff? Hey, they sank a couple of U-boats during W.W. II. Who's to say they can't do a little patrolling now?

 

[TXCAP4228]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention Leftist Marxist Pigs

If that's true, then the Administration needs to get this evidence out in the open. Now. Their continued stalling--regardless of the reasons--is eroding world support for our actions. Even the British are getting cold feet!

Maybe it'll all crystalize during the State of the Union

I hope he makes a good case. I think he's been waiting for the right time to do it. I think tonight is it.

...Things changed at 0900 ET on 9-11-2001. Failing to inspect everything that enters the United States was foolhardy before 9/11. After 9/11, it's criminal.

But if we prosecute George II and Clinton for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, we'd also have to get George I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and posthumously, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Truman. Everyone who's been involved in the Middle East since the establishment of Israel in 1948.Frisking children and old ladies in airports?100%. We're at war, remember?

I'll buy that its important to inspect now, but I don't buy that even if we're at war that we inspect EVERYTHING coming into the country. That's not practical, there's just no way.

Touché on the frisking old ladies and children, but you have to be honest that a lot of people from your side of the aisle would have cried foul if it had been any other way.

I'm an airline pilot; I shouldn't have to come up with a plan. There are people in Washington who are supposed to have the brains to figure things like this out without my help.

But if you really pushed me, I'd suggest pulling our troops--and I mean everywhere--back to the infield and use them to lock our borders up so tight that no more Muhammed Attahs could even get near our country. (I can't believe I'm going to say this: maybe a draft isn't such a bad idea...) "Homeland Defense" doesn't mean squat if you don't have the people to implement. Which homeland are we defending now, Afghanistan? Iraq? South Korea?

My point was that there is no easy way to search every single thing that comes into the country. Don't forget the trucks crossing the borders from Mexico and Canada.

We are too involved in world commerce to isolate ourselves the way you're talking about. We also cannot afford to retreat from the world to make sure the border is safe. What we're doing now is trying to divide our attention around the hot spots a lot like a pilot dividing attention flying on intruments. You can't stop paying attention to any one place for too long. We HAVE to be involved outside our borders.

My next point was that its one thing to criticize for failing to protect the borders but its another thing entirely to KNOW that there's really no way to accomplish it but still to criticize. That's why I said you were being disingenuous. Its one thing to make fair and honest criticism, its another thing to criticize something that NO ONE could fix without at least admitting that.

If we restored the level of national security we had in 1944-45, the only way Al Queda would be able to attack us would be through an outright military-style attack...and we can defend against that very easily! It's a little more difficult to defend against terrorists working within our borders!

I am not sure that's true. We had Germans infiltrate from submarines during WW2. It happened. There is just NO WAY to prevent it completely. What you have to do is goi out and get them before they can harm you, which is what we are doing.

George W. Bush needs a bright, shining, victorious war--complete with Saddam's body impaled on a spear--to insure his re-election. He's forgotten all about Homeland Defense and September 11th.

W's approval numbers are phenominal, in spite of the beating the markets have taken. The reason is that most Americans see integrity and action where they saw neither before. I disagree with you on this - I don't think W needs Sadaam on a spear or a victory (or even a war) to win in 2004.

Bring it on. I've got a whole drawer full of rubber bands!

Anybody got a good avatar of a rubber band shooting?

Tell me this: the Civil Air Patrol--regardless of what people think--has good people. Why can't we lean on them a little more on this Homeland Defense stuff? Hey, they sank a couple of U-boats during W.W. II. Who's to say they can't do a little patrolling now?

Funny you should ask, send me a PM.

 

[Archer]

Well, I'd like to take this moment to thank TXCAP4228 and Typhoon1244 for the civil discussion on this rather controversial matter.

It's hard to find people who can discuss hot topics without getting themselves in a flame war and start lowering themselves to the point of insult and subjective rather than objective discussions.

Archer

 

[DoinTime]

A friend of mine emailed this to me the other day. While meant to be a joke I found it to be somewhat accurate based on track records.



Last month, a survey was conducted by the U.N. worldwide.
The only question asked was:
"Would you please give your most honest opinion about solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"

The survey was a HUGE failure.

In Africa they did not know what "food" meant.
In Western Europe they did not know what "shortage" meant.
In Eastern Europe they did not know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they did not know what "solution" meant.
In South America they did not know what "please" meant.
In Asia they did not know what "honest" meant.
In USA they did not know what "the rest of the world" meant.

 

[FalconPilot69]

If You're Happy and You Know It....

Right, wrong or indifferent, this was good.


If you cannot find Osama, Bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's 'pre-emptive non-aggression' bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me,
'Cos it's all the proof I need,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.



If the globe is quickly warming, bomb Iraq.
If the poor will soon be storming, bomb Iraq.
We assert that might makes right,
Burning oil is a delight,
For the empire we will fight,
Bomb Iraq.


If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
and hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, Bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, Bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.



So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Well, I'd like to take this moment to thank TXCAP4228 and Typhoon1244 for the civil discussion on this rather controversial matter. It's hard to find people who can discuss hot topics without getting themselves in a flame war and start lowering themselves to the point of insult and subjective rather than objective discussions.

Screw you, Archer!

Just kidding...

 

[Typhoon1244]

Okay, as I already stated in another thread, after hearing the President's State of the Union address I have reversed my opinion on the upcoming battle against Iraq.

Now I have a new concern: if Saddam's most deadly WMD's are unaccounted for, their locations unknown, how are we going to use our military to remove or destroy them?

 

[TXCAP4228]

Now I have a new concern: if Saddam's most deadly WMD's are unaccounted for, their locations unknown, how are we going to use our military to remove or destroy them?

This is a legitmate concern. However, the lowest common denominator is a tyrant with his finger on the button. If we remove the tyrant and dismantle the his aparatus for employing these weapons (ie, we take over the country) then the problem goes away.

After Sadaam is gone, I think the scientists and technicians involved in Iraq's programs will tell us everything.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Re: If You're Happy and You Know It....

Right, wrong or indifferent, this was good.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Whatever.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...the lowest common denominator is a tyrant with his finger on the button. If we remove the tyrant...

...then one of the fervently loyal underlings he surrounds himself with will have their finger on the button.

I just hope the military knows a lot more about Saddam's infrastructure than we realize, or else this could be an ugly conflict.

Don't misunderstand me: I still think George II is a doofus, and I definitely think he has a personal agenda in wanting to eliminate Saddam. However, after hearing about all the unaccounted-for WMD's in last night's speech, I do think we need to eliminate Saddam and remove Iraq's ability to wage any kind of war.

I just hope George's personal concerns (revenge, ego, re-election, etc.) don't cloud his judgement during the coming conflict. He needs to back off and let Secretary Rumsfield & Co. run the show.

Oh, and TXCAP, don't belittle FalconPilot's little poem. It's funny! Reminds me of jokes about Reagan being wakened from a sleep and shouting "Hmmph?" Bomb Libya!"

 

[TXCAP4228]

...then one of the fervently loyal underlings he surrounds himself with will have their finger on the button.

I just hope the military knows a lot more about Saddam's infrastructure than we realize, or else this could be an ugly conflict.

Don't misunderstand me: I still think George II is a doofus, and I definitely think he has a personal agenda in wanting to eliminate Saddam. However, after hearing about all the unaccounted-for WMD's in last night's speech, I do think we need to eliminate Saddam and remove Iraq's ability to wage any kind of war.

My point is that if Sadaam goes, so goes the rest of them. The "loyal underlings" remain loyal because of privelege and threat.

You can call him a doofus if you want, but he did persuade you on the justification for war if it comes to that - and you're a tough sell. Give him a little credit at least!

 

[TXCAP4228]

Oh, and TXCAP, don't belittle FalconPilot's little poem. It's funny! Reminds me of jokes about Reagan being wakened from a sleep and shouting "Hmmph?" Bomb Libya!"

I am a big Reagan fan, but then I am admittedly a dork. Still, I remember seeing an SNL skit (I can't even remember who the actors were) on Reagan that cracked me up. Resgan was getting a briefing and he asked who the head of "That goup over there" was and the briefer said "Yasser". Reagan says, "Well allright then, tell me." The briefer says "Yasser." Well, it was like who's on first. It was pretty funny.



But FalconPilot's poem wasn't funny at all.

 

[FalconPilot69]

Thanks TexCap...at least someone got it. I whole heartedly agree with your posting as well. If we go in half cocked, don't fully understand that we will be occupying Iraq for a long time to come, and wipe out his infrastructure, we will not accomplish anything but potentially killing people without a cause.

In watching his address last night, this president has the over whelming power to make changes that will affect everyone's life. I will be interested to see if he does what he says we need to do right now, such as the tax issue, insurance and so forth.

Typhoon, I realize you don't agree with the poem, and that is OK. Just makes me realize more and more what a wonderful country we live in that we can openly agree to disagree.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Typhoon, I realize you don't agree with the poem, and that is OK. Just makes me realize more and more what a wonderful country we live in that we can openly agree to disagree.

Hey wait! You got it all bass ackwards; I LIKED the poem!