Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

John Kerry and Hanoi Jane!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Every country has useful intel. You just have to ask yourself if they have an agenda that would color it.

Funny, what color does GWB use? ;) Maybe we should all ask this question of ourselves. If you think the Bush administration didn't crazy up the evidence a little (including Powell showing pictures of a Kurdish terror camp as proof that we needed to get moving - we controlled Kurdish Iraq), you're missing something. GWB was SO DESPERATE to link al Qaeda to Iraq that he has made blatant misstatements about their links WITHOUT PROOF. Good to know that we have such an honest, caring president that is out to promote world peace and cooperation.

GWB wanted to avenge his daddy's assassination attempt. If you think for one second that Iraq was this close to launching an ICBM filled with mustard gas or whatever, you're dreaming along with GWB. You'd think they could come up with something better than a SCUD or Al Samood missile. If Hussein had these weapons, the crazy MF would have used them years ago. He hates everyone, not just Americans. He hates the Israelis, as well, but never fired weapons on them. He was not exactly a strategic thinker. He was a bit maniacal and probably didn't calculate much. I'm sure that, if he had nasty weapons, it would have done his heart good to see some Israelis fry in a cloud of mustard gas/sarin/VX.

Iraq should NOT have been a priority after 9-11. Catching OBL should have been priority #1. Now, al Qaeda is inside Iraq (talk about the tail wagging the dog) and blowing stuff up. Funny how fighting "terrorism" makes it easier for terrorists to kill Americans. We created a power vacuum in the Middle East and Americans today are much less safe abroad because of it. Tell me how safe you feel next time you cruise to Europe/Asia. It ain't any better today than four years ago.

GWB and his foreign policy (or lack thereof) are the main threats to our nat'l security, as well as to our liberties at home. You can vote for him all you want. It's your choice. I just don't see the wisdom in voting for a liar that pisses everyone off. Just a thought for your next layover.
 
GWB wanted to avenge his daddy's assassination attempt.

A. You just destroyed the credibility of your arguement by bringing feelings into it.

2. There are alot of easier ways to "avenge his daddy" than to invade his country. You could...I don't know...send an assassin to take care of him, drop a few bombs without making any overtures toward war (you know, a surprise attack), or even (my favorite) pop a low-yield neutron bomb over his current residency (gound burst it) and blame it on the shiites. Say they got a neutron bomb from Iran, then there's another excuse to kick their @sses.

If you paid attention during the election (or selection for you hardcore libs), you would know that it was always GWB's intention to hold Iraq to it's UN obligations. Oh yeah, there is a law on the books that says the US is supposed make sure there is "regime change" in Iraq.
 
Charles Lindbergh

Lindbergh was a very focal anti-war/isolationist in 1940 and 41, He directly confronted the Roosevelt administration and publicly resigned his commission. He became a non-person as far as the Roosevelt administration was concerned. He was outcast to YIP, to test fly B-24's coming off the assembly line for another major anti-war activist, Henry Ford. Since he had toured Germany prior to W.W.II, he was appointed by the Truman administration to tour Germany after W.W.II to draw conclusions. One of the conclusions he drew as stated in one of biographies was "I was wrong about US involvement in European affairs, if the United States had been as strong in 1940 as it was in 1943 W.W.II would not have happened" Peace comes from strenght.
 
Eagle RJ, I sense a duality in your statements.

You say:

"I'm blown away by the media and political pundits saying now that "we were wrong" and "there were never any WMDs".

and then

"Maybe they don't recall the mid-late '90s discoveries of mustard gas, anthrax, and uranium enrichmenent"

Let's take statement number two.

Where did you get the information about the mid 90's WMD discoveries from? Could it have been the media?? Were you "blown away" by it as well? Did you dispute it? Or do you pick and choose when to dispute, just to make the story stick with your own convictions? (hmm....that one reminds me of the White House as well)

And what would it take for all you hardheaded guys to come to a conclusion that maybe, just maybe, we were wrong.

I will tell you right now that if they find "massive quantities" of WMD's buried in the sand or records of them being transported out of the country (and what media outlet wouldn't LOVE to publish that) I will have no problem saying: I was wrong.

About the mobile weapons labs. Kay himself (and there is probably no more qualified person on the face of this planet to make a statement about this) said that they were NOT dual use but mobile helium manufacturimg labs (yes mobile so that you can fill the balloons in different spots).

About the intel.

Yes an iraqui official did - how many iraqui officialls have said that we are there to get their oil? Do you believe them as well? Both have been reported by the media. And even if you were right. That's three counties of something like 120 that opposed the war...let's pick one that didn't have ties to Saddam and start using their intel :)

Let me give you a suggestion. Have an open mind! Don't start out with saying "It HAS to be this way and I'll prove it". Try "I don't know what's going on - let's look at all the availible information and make an informed decision"
 
Last edited:
I could care less about whether we find WMDs in Iraq or not. In the grand scheme of things it is about as important as what color tie I will wear tomorrow.

Once again, the true reason for being there is to kill the terrorists who show up to fight us there and install an elected representative regime in the Middle East. Installing a representative government in Iraq will speed up the development of secular rule (instead of religious nutjob rule) in the region.

The clerics and their supporters that rely on the old power structures for their well-being will fight this tooth and nail and do most all in their power to see it fail. In the long run, this will bring more stability and peace to the region than it has seen in 1,000 years.

The old school Middle-East power brokers will also subvert whatever organization to carry water for them that they can. The Germans, Russians and particularly French said there were no WMDs to keep us from closing off the trough that the public coffers of Iraq represented to them, not because they are noble, peace loving people.

So WMDs were a poor cover for action, so what. The result is what is important.
 
Last edited:
merikeyegro said:
He hates the Israelis, as well, but never fired weapons on them.

Oh man, where to start...

Saddam fired how many Scuds at Israel during Gulf War I? Some were intercepted by Patriots, and some hit the ground, killing Israeli citizens. Remember that? Luckily, they all had just high-explosive warheads.
You can bet that Israel had their entire air force lined up on the taxiway ready to go if one of the missiles had a chem or bio payload. Thankfully, we were able to keep them out of the conflict, because I can only imagine where the Middle East would be if they had gotten involved.
That's another argument for removing the growing threat of Saddam Hussein. If the coalition of nations didn't do anything, Israel would have, as they did with the Iraqi reactor.

CLCAP,

Come on! Information about Saddam's WMDs was widely available from numerous sources; the media, the White House, the UN, etc. What blows me away are the statements that there never were any WMDs. Even the most biased members of the media should see that as a factually incorrect statement.

I don't think we'll ever find a 'mother lode' of WMDs. Saddam's stockpile was probably dispersed throughout the country, and maybe even sent to other countries. We're finding WMDs every few days in Iraq. The artillery shells filled with blister agent, the ricin in the lab, and just a few days ago, blocks of cyanide salt that were so pure, they had no use other than as a weapon. These discoveries are never given much press, because they are small. We probably won't find a huge hidden bunker full of goodies, like the press seems to be holding out for.

Had we left Saddam in power, he probably wouldn't have attacked us or Israel directly with his weapons- he knew that he would get jacked instantly. Instead, we would have a terrorist attack in one of our cities, maybe involving thousands of casualties, and we may never have found out who was responsible. Speak for yourself- I sleep better at night knowing that this threat has been removed.

Looking forward to voting for GWB's re-election in November...
 
Ok EagleRJ And Bart, we can be going in circles forever. Just answer this:

Is it ok for a statesman to say that "Iraq can attack us and others within 45 minutes with massive quantities of WMD's" in order to gather national support for a war? You seem to hate Clinton for lying about a BJ to "get away with it", how about lying about a threat to "start a war" and kill people on both sides?

And Bart, the "the end justifies the means" rhetoric has never been effective. If I don't remember it wrong Hitler tried that by sterilising and killing disabled and sick people - the new generations would thank him for it - well it just didn't work. Or maybe we should euthinize everyone wearing glasses or contact lenses (LASIK is no excuse)?? Think about the future - everyone having 20/20!! Do you wear glasses Bart?
 
Last edited:
Bush never said that. Tony Blair did, using intelligence provided to him by MI6.

Once again, the subject of this investigation is not the presence of WMDs. The subject is the immediacy of the threat.
 
merikeyegro said:
He hates the Israelis, as well, but never fired weapons on them. He was not exactly a strategic thinker. He was a bit maniacal and probably didn't calculate much. I'm sure that, if he had nasty weapons, it would have done his heart good to see some Israelis fry in a cloud of mustard gas/sarin/VX.



merikeyegro,

Hussien layed off of Israel because he knew that they would retaliate massively if he attacked. They had already knocked out nuclear plants in the region that they considered threats and gave every sign that an attack against them would cost the attacker more than he gained.

On the other hand, the US had taken every attack for the last 20 years laying down. Our crawdaddying started when my hero, Ronald Reagan, pulled out of Lebanon and was turned into an art form by Bill Clinton when he allowed the attacks against the WTC1993, Kobar towers, USS Cole, etc to to unavenged. It was no wonder to me that we were attacked, heck even a bunch of two bit Somalian warlords had run us off. Until George W Bush decided to hit back. You go ahead and vote for someone who wants to let the cheese eating surrender monkeys dictate our foreign policy, just make sure you volunteer to be suicide bombed by a radical islamist, you know, sort of like putting your money where your mouth is.

enigma
 
CLaptrAP,

You will never convince me that you have a valid point. Period. Bill Clinton lied, he admitted it. You say GWB lied, and that is NOT a fact. He may have relied on intelligence that was inaccurate in making a threat assessment. I for one feel he went nowhere near as far as necessary to secure the US from terrorists.

You make a gigantic leap from logic to pure fantasy with your comparisons of our battles against terrorists to Hitlerian cleansing of the gene pool. How did you come up with that? Did your giant invisible talking dog give it to you? I see no connection between the two.

If you are trying to put Islamic terrorists on equal footing with Hitler's victims in WWII, I don't think you will find a sympathetic audience anywhere except on DU or Barbra Streisand's website.

My advice is get used to what you have seen in terms of foreign policy post 9/11. You will see at least four more years of it. You better hope for your childrens sake you see another 25 years of it.
 
Last edited:
Bart,

First of all - I didn't compare the terrorists with the victims of WWII! It was a satirical way to get the point across - that the end does NOT justify the means! Second there are still NO proven ties of prewar Iraq and AL Queda!! Look that one up!

Your first two sentencences "You will never convince me that you have a valid point. Period." pretty much sum it all up - No matter what I (or anyone that disagrees with you) say or do your mind is made up. What's the point of engaging in a discussion in a forum if your convictions are unalterable??

The only way to grow as a human beeing is to open yourself up to the possibility that at times - you may be wrong (not you obviously - I mean other people :rolleyes: )

And for my childrens sake - I really hope you are wrong. What we are doing right now is treating the symptoms of the problem - not the problem itself (kind of like taking an advil for pain associated with cancer). For every terrorist we kill or capture (and I am NOT saying that we shouldn't do that!!) there are five born (by our own militarys admission). People over there hate us more, not less! Unless we can somehow convince those people that we are the good guys or just kill every one of them, this world will be a terrible place 25 years from now.

I have a suggestion for you: First and foremost - Ask more questions and provide fever answers!! Find your information through several independent sources. Read international newsmedia - so you get many sides of the same story. Open up those eyes of yours and don't just follow blindly! You may be surprised how your outlook on the world will change!!
 
Last edited:
For every terrorist we kill or capture (and I am NOT saying that we shouldn't do that!!) there are five born (by our own militarys admission).

This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Help me understand just how that works, do they spring from the head of the dead terrorist as the sons of Zeus did? Did you read the stories of the young detainees returning from Gitmo?

I would encourage you to read beyond the news media. I can assure you that my viewpoints are formed from multiple sources, most of which are not dominated by the newswires or American Media. Quite a bit of my information comes from people I came to know while working in the Middle East, and from local news sources in the region.

Since you are such an expert on the area: How is your Arabic and Farsi? How many local language newspapers do you read from Iran each week? How about underground newspapers? Have you ever had an hour long discussion with a resident of the region on the situation? So when I call you naive and ill-informed, and state you will never change my mind, it is because I have the information that convinces me clearly that my analysis and understanding of the situation is correct.

My statement about you not changing my mind is based on how you approach the situation with few facts, alot of emotion and a dump truck full of assumptions. You will have to come at me with something much stronger than "Second there are still NO proven ties of prewar Iraq and terrorists!!" when it is a fact that Saddam Hussein made documented payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel that have been both widely reported and verified by multiple sources.
 
Last edited:
The news this week is talking about terrorists targeting Arabs in Iraq. The TV news is only scratching the surface on this one. I am including a whole article. Sorry I can't post a link, I am getting a reprint from the Early Bird (a Pentagon news summary). Sorry for the long post, but it's worth reading.

Looks like our efforts there are being a little more effective than some would like us to know.

New York Times

U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict
By DEXTER FILKINS
February 9, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 8 - American officials here have obtained a detailed proposal that they conclude was written by an operative in Iraq to senior leaders of Al Qaeda, asking for help to wage a "sectarian war" in Iraq in the next months.

The Americans say they believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has long been under scrutiny by the United States for suspected ties to Al Qaeda, wrote the undated 17-page document. Mr. Zarqawi is believed to be operating here in Iraq.


The document was made available to The New York Times on Sunday, with an accompanying translation made by the military. A reporter was allowed to see the Arabic and English versions and to write down large parts of the translation.

The memo says extremists are failing to enlist support inside the country, and have been unable to scare the Americans into leaving. It even laments Iraq's lack of mountains in which to take refuge.


Yet mounting an attack on Iraq's Shiite majority could rescue the movement, according to the document. The aim, the document contends, is to prompt a counterattack against the Arab Sunni minority.


Such a "sectarian war" will rally the Sunni Arabs to the religious extremists, the document argues. It says a war against the Shiites must start soon - at "zero hour" - before the Americans hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis. That is scheduled for the end of June.


The American officials in Baghdad said they were confident the account was credible and said they had independently corroborated Mr. Zarqawi's authorship. If it is authentic, it offers an inside account of the insurgency and its frustrations, and bears out a number of American assumptions about the strength and nature of religious extremists - but it also charts out a battle to come.


The document would also constitute the strongest evidence to date of contacts between extremists in Iraq and Al Qaeda. But it does not speak to the debate about whether there was a Qaeda presence in Iraq during the Saddam Hussein era, nor is there any mention of a collaboration with Hussein loyalists.


Yet other interpretations may be possible, including that it was written by some other insurgent, but one who exaggerated his involvement.


Still, a senior United States intelligence official in Washington said, "I know of no reason to believe the letter is bogus in any way." He said the letter was seized in a raid on a known Qaeda safe house in Baghdad, and did not pass through Iraqi groups that American intelligence officials have said in the past may have provided unreliable information.


Without providing further specifics, the senior intelligence officer said there was additional information pointing to the idea that Al Qaeda was considering mounting or had already mounted attacks on Shiite targets in Iraq.


"This is not the only indication of that," the official said. The intercepted letter also appears to be the strongest indication since the American invasion last March that Mr. Zarqawi remains active in plotting attacks, the official said.


According to the American officials here, the Arabic-language document was discovered in mid-January when a Qaeda suspect was arrested in Iraq. Under interrogation, the Americans said, the suspect identified Mr. Zarqawi as the author of the document. The man arrested was carrying it on a CD to Afghanistan, the Americans said, and intended to deliver it to people they described as the "inner circle" of Al Qaeda's leadership. That presumably refers to Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.


The Americans declined to identify the suspect. But the discovery of the disc coincides with the arrest of Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani described by American officials at the time as a courier for the Qaeda network. Mr. Ghul is believed to be the first significant member of that network to have been captured inside Iraq.


The document is written with a rhetorical flourish. It calls the Americans "the biggest cowards that God has created," but at the same time sees little chance that they will be forced from Iraq.


"So the solution, and only God knows, is that we need to bring the Shia into the battle," the writer of the document said. "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands" of Shiites.


The author offers his services and those of his followers to the recipients of the letter, who American officials contend are Al Qaeda's leaders.


"You noble brothers, leaders of the jihad, we do not consider ourselves people who compete against you, nor would we ever aim to achieve glory for ourselves like you did," the writer says. "So if you agree with it, and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you to work under your guidance and yield to your command."

In the period before the war, Bush administration officials argued that Mr. Zarqawi constituted the main link between Al Qaeda and Mr. Hussein's government. Last February at the United Nations, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants."


Around that time, the Americans believed that Mr. Zarqawi was holed up in the mountains at the Iranian border with Ansar al Islam, a group linked to Al Qaeda that is suspected of mounting attacks against American forces in Iraq.


Since the war ended, little evidence has emerged to support the allegation of a prewar Qaeda connection in Iraq. [ED: What about the airplane found at Salman Pak and the foreign terrorists captured there?] Last month, Mr. Powell conceded that the American government had found "no smoking gun" linking Mr. Hussein's government with Al Qaeda.


In the document, the writer indicated that he had directed about 25 suicide bombings inside Iraq. That conforms with an American view that suicide bombings were more likely to be carried out by Iraqi religious extremists and foreigners than by Hussein allies.


"We were involved in all the martyrdom operations - in terms of overseeing, preparing and planning - that took place in this country," the writer of the document says. "Praise be to Allah, I have completed 25 of these operations, some of them against the Shia and their leaders, the Americans and their military, and the police, the military and the coalition forces."


But the writer details the difficulties that he and his comrades have been experiencing, both in combating American forces and in enlisting supporters. The Americans are an easy target, according to the author, who nonetheless claims to be impressed by the Americans' resolve. After significant losses, he writes, "America, however, has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes."


The Iraqis themselves, the writer says, have not been receptive to taking holy warriors into their homes.


"Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother," according to the document. "However, they will not allow you to make their home a base for operations or a safe house."


The writer contends that the American efforts to set up Iraqi security services have succeeded in depriving the insurgents of allies, particularly in a country where kinship networks are extensive.


"The problem is you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood and appearance," the document says. "When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region."


With some exasperation, the author writes: "We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases.


"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.


But there is still time to mount a war against the Shiites, thereby to set off a wider war, he writes, if attacks are well under way before the turnover of sovereignty in June. After that, the writer suggests, any attacks on Shiites will be viewed as Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that will find little support among the people.


"We have to get to the zero hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night, and after that by day, God willing," the writer says. "The zero hour needs to be at least four months before the new government gets in place."


That is the timetable, the author concludes, because, after that, "How can we kill their cousins and sons?"


"The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority," the letter states. "This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

Douglas Jehl contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
 
merikeyegro said:
..." However, Saddam Hussein and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, although Bush would have you think it.

When GWB is wasting young people's lives fighting for - really - nothing, blowing my cash, and diverting resources from the War on Terror, you're quite right that I'm going to protest."..

You're really not thinking this through, are you? If you agree with fighting the War on Terror, then I suggest you listen to what the terrorists (in this case OBL) say is the motivation for their acts. OBL's (not Bush's) stated reason for doing what he does (indeed why he formed Al Quaeda in the first place), was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. His lame attempt to co-opt the Palestinian issue into his own only occurred after 9-11 and when he was on the run looking for support. Those American troops were there in SA to protect against the largest and best-equipped (and contrary to revisionist history, 99% equipped by their socialist bretheren the Soviets and French) army in the region...Hussein's. If you say his military wasn't "powerful", then you're ignorant of just how weak his neighbours are minus Western support.

Iraq's army/country was led by a Baathist (socialist..not suprisingly formed at Sorbonne University in Paris in the 30s) dictator who modeled himself after Stalin and who's STATED goal was to form a modern, greater "pan-Arabia" with himself at the helm...one he could hand down to either of his own sons a la Kim Il Sung in North Korea. Beginning two wars in one decade proved his weren't just idle dreams of grandeur, but goals that he was willing to shed the blood of millions for, and did. Now, do you think that the world would, or should, tolerate him sitting on top of almost 50% of the world's known oil reserves if his dreams of expansion were realized given the world economic meltdown that would occur? No way, except for France and Russia because their long-standing political, economic, and military ties to his regime.

So as long as Hussein (or his sons) were in power and poised as a threat, American troops would remain in Saudi Arabia, the self-proclaimed reason for OBL's terrorist ops against America (and now inside Saudi Arabia, who has arrested hundreds and are vocally fighting fanaticism).

Most importantly, with Iraq's army and Hussein (all of them) gone and the threat removed, American troops are no longer in Saudi Arabia, thereby nullifying the MAIN focal point OBL has been using all these years to try and justify his own actions, and as a recruiting tool. There's your reason as to why toppling Saddam IS part of the War on Terror.

And just one last thing since you sound pretty ungrateful for the lack of terrorist attacks in America since 9-11; those American lives aren't being wasted in Iraq. Perhaps you should try and focus on the fact that for every terrorist that is captured or dies at the hands of our troops over here (I work in the Middle East) after they slip in to Iraq for the purpose of "waging war on Americans" means they DIDN'T find their way to your home town to do something like blow up a shopping mall. Now, if you don't think that's what's happening, then I'm afraid your anti-Bush (I didn't vote for him) emotions have clouded your ability to see.
 
Bart,

Your quote

"This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Help me understand just how that works, do they spring from the head of the dead terrorist as the sons of Zeus did? Did you read the stories of the young detainees returning from Gitmo? "

Well how about their brothers and sisters, neighbors, cousins, sons and daughters - I don't expect you to believe me (like I said before, you are as closeminded as they come and noone is going to change your beliefs) so how about an "official" US government document - a quote from one of your idols:

"For every terrorist whom coalition forces capture, kill, dissuade or deter, others are being trained. To win the war on terror, we must also win the war of ideas -- the battle for the minds of those who are being recruited by terrorist networks across the globe."

Guess who!! Barbara Straisand?? A bleeding heart liberal?? Me?? Nope, Donald Rumsfeld. And here's the link

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20031028b3.html

Hope that "helped you to understand" (I am still hoping that you are able to admit that you were wrong and take your "biggest load of crap" away)

As far as my Arabic and Farsi goes - not too good, never studied either (spent quite some time living in different parts of Europe though where I met quite a few representatives from that region - and yes I have had quite a few discussions with them) and yes, I read a few of their official media publications (try to stay away from the state controlled ones though - which basically leaves me with two) along with European and Asian news (and oh yes american - even the "fair and balanced" one). How about you? You asked and I answered so I expect the same curtesy - what do you base your opinions on? (What sources in the region that is) However you spin it - most people over there (and even arabs in norht america) do not have a positive view of us and our policies (there's a reason why Osama was a very popular name given to newborns for quite some time after 9/11) and unless we can "change their hearts and minds" my previous statement about killing them all or learning to live with terror stands. (Look at Israel - they've tried our approach since 1948. Would you call it successful?)

Ooops seems like you've got me on the last one!! You're absolutely right! Saddam DID in fact sponsor Palestinan terrorists (so does Iran, Syria and unofficially Saudi Arabia - not that it detracts anything from Saddam) I actually meant "Al Quada" (and I edited my post to change that) so I stand corrected - even though I just "misspoke"

Now as far as a few facts, barring the last one when I wrote in error, EVERYTHING I wrote I can prove with an official or media statement, and no, there's absolutely NO emotion involved!! Quite the opposite - just pure facts! I don't think the same can be said about your argument. Except for Clinton admitting to lying you do NOT have a single fact in your argument (point to one more that you can prove by a statement not written by yourself!!) just assumptions, emotion based theories and namecalling. "CLaptrAP" (somehow you forgot a C - oh well don't worry we both agreed on another thread that your English (and thus probably spelling) could use some improvement (have you tried reading books?? I hear it works wonders!! PM me and I'll reccomend some eye opening titles)) Guess what - I will not sink down to your level!! And again! TAKE THE BLINDFOLDS OFF!!
 
Last edited:
merikeyegro said:
Heck, he even said that he was "liberating" Austria. Sound familiar?

If you don't question your president, especially this one, you welcome him to walk all over you and others. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.


Wow, you're moral relavatism is astonishing. Do you really think the US is in Iraq to take over Iraq and run it's gov't and send dissenters to the gas chamber. How you can compare these is astounding. And your last statement, I suppose in your world Bin laden in just 'one man's freedom fighter'. This kind of thought is what scares me (among other things) about a majority of liberals, their inability to see evil even when it attacks you as in 9/11. Have we already forgotten?
 
Cherokee,

Unfortunately Bin Laden IS a freedom fighter in the eyes a lot of people from that region (so technically merikeyegro's comment IS correct) even though he is a disguisting individual that the world will be (maybe already is) much better without. Like it or not - until we change their minds - more of his sort are bound to come - it may take 1, 10 or a 100 years - they have time on their side (Islam is by far the fastest growing religion - and I am NOT saying that it is a terrorist religion but definitely one where a lot of people feeling "wronged" use to justify horrible acts)
 
Last edited:
Enough with all the rhetoric of whether we should have gone into Iraq and take out Hussein.

WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED ON 9/11/2001 AND ARE WE JUST TO LAY BACK UNTIL ANOTHER TRAGETY TAKES MORE LIVES ON AMERICAN SOIL? I BELIEVE IN “SPEAK SOFTLY BUT CARRY A BIG STICK”.

We took the BIG STICK directly to the source, Afghanistan then Iraq. Your “turn the other cheek” attitude will result in more lives lost because we did nothing. How are you going to feel if a relative or loved one is sent to a final resting place due to another terrorist attach? History has taught us many lessons. It is a good thing that we have a President that is willing to defend our country against terrorist regimes on their soil, rather then ours.
 
protesting the war

I don't know what "arch conservative" is code word for but, at the risk of sounding like one I will throw in my two cents. I think the protesting of the war did extend the war and did kill thousands more on both sides. Read H.R. Mc Masters Deriliction of Duty. It tells how the protest forced Johnson and McNamara to lie to the public. Second, Protesting is our right. I served 28 yrs in the military for that right. But that right doesn't mean advocating the over throw of the government. The groups that JK and Fonda associated with did just that. They also made their protests destructive. They have no right to burn or blow up buildings that housed workers they disagreed with. In my mind if you want to stand in front of the White House with a sign have at it. If you want to bomb the ROTC building at the U. of Wisconsin then you have just called "fights on" and I would do anything possible to legally remove you from the protest.
 
CLCAP said:
Cherokee,

Unfortunately Bin Laden IS a freedom fighter in the eyes a lot of people from that region (so technically merikeyegro's comment IS correct) even though he is a disguisting individual that the world will be (maybe already is) much better without. Like it or not - until we change their minds - more of his sort or bound to come - it may take 1, 10 or a 100 years - they have time on their side (Islam is by far the fastest growing religion - and I am NOT saying that it is a terrorist religion but definitely one where a lot of people feeling "wronged" use to justify horrible acts)

Change our minds on WHAT?????????
 
Where do you see "OUR"??
 
Backing up to the original posts with the Kerry photos...........

All the more reason to vote FOR him!

Hopefully Bush's 4 year long "I'm a redneck that just won the lottery" days will be over.
 
Read my previous post - the one before the one with "their minds"
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom