Viva Le France!

[100LL... Again!]

And it's all Bush's fault. Please. SOO sorry about your upgrade. Bunch of us are out of work and STILL supporting Bush.

Grred is what got us here.

Bush is doing the best he can. I guess you think someone has a magic wand that can instantly fix 8 years of treason. America is paying for it's love affair with clinton. Ultimately, we will recover, because the right man is in the Oval Office.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Pulling out the red flag!

OK House, EXACTLY who are these high ranking individuals. I guess you have personal ties with these guys. Really, I would like to know.

 

[VivaZapata]

100LL... again,

Sorry pal. You'll have to do better than doubting that I'm a pilot. Where is the relavence here? You can't (not with any logical basis) lump me in one of your two categories. Perhaps this putting it in one neat little simple package makes it easier for you as it makes it so you don't have to think so much. i.e. You don't think that the USA has billions at stake as well? Or perhaps that we armed Iraq under Hussien in the 80's? He was just as much of a S.O.B. back then but since he hasn't been our S.O.B lately, we'll have to teach him a lesson. Did you think of that? hmm Nah, I doubt that you have. I almost looked past this and gave you the benefit of the doubt until I read some of your other posts. It seems your message board modus operandi is to sneak in name-calling as if that gives you credibility. "dufus"? LOL I think you should have left that tactic back at the playground.

You can continue to think that I am "woefully uninformed". I could suggest that you learn to put two and two together before you post but I won't. Do you see the profound stupidity in this "debate tactic"? Probably not.

 

[capt_zman]

Just a quick direct question for you:

Do you want Hussein out of power or do you think he poses no threat?

 

[surplus1]

France's position is based on nothing but pure financial interests.

You are quite probably correct. So is Russia's position. Now that we know that, would someone please tell me .....

What is the position of the US based upon?

Spare me the idea that it is based on "freedom" and give me something concrete. Spare me the idea that it is based on "disarming Sadam of WMD" (I pray that after the invasion we will actually find all the WMD that he allegedly has. If we don't, then I guess we'll have to "plant" them or someone is going to look awful stupid.) Spare me the idea that it is because he has "violated UN resolutions". Spare me the idea that it is because he is "a dictator". Spare me the idea that it is because we "want to help the people of Iraq."(Most Americans don't give a da*n about the people of Iraq, and a huge percentage don't even know where it is.)

Reading the rhetoric in this thread, it is clear that the majority support the war, but it is not at all clear (to me) WHY you support it. No one has articulated his/her reason for support as yet. (Unless of course you blindly follow the President like lemmings).

It is also clear that disliking the French is "politically correct" among the majority of writers. Why are they disliked ... because their President disagrees with our President on this issue?

Since you all set yourselves up as "defenders of freedom", why is it that you call fellow Americans that express their right to exercise freedom of speech by voicing an opinion, different from yours, "Anti-American"? This American is all for defending "freedom", but a lot of you make me wonder if you understand what freedom really is.

Most of you criticize the French as ungrateful for the help we gave them in WWII. Maybe they are ungrateful, I really don't know, but I doubt it. Being grateful for the help we gave them does not require blind acceptance of all future decisions of the US Government. Maybe in your minds it does? Does it?

ALL of you anti-French seem to forget that if if were not for the help of France, we Americans would have lost the revolutionary war with Great Britain. It was not George Washington that defeated Cornwallis. It was the French army/navy. We got that help, thanks primarily to two men. one of them French (Lafayete) and the other American ... no, not Washington, Benjamin Franklin ... whose superb diplomacy convinced the French king to aid the rebel revolutionaries. In the war of 1812 with Great Britain, were it not for the French, the fledgling US would have lost and been returned to the status of a British colony.

To the gentleman that mentioned the French defeat in Vietnam ... yes, they lost and that was a good thing. That was a revolution too, not very different from our own revolution against the English. By the way, we tried to take the place of the French by dividing Vietnam and colonizing the southern half. We lost too, after killing nearly 60,000 American young men, wounding a couple hundred thousand more, and dividing our own country. We even had our army kill American students, for exercising their right to free speech. We called them anti-American ... just like some of you are doing right now. We stopped the killing eventually, only because the American people did not support the US Government and they made it known.

While you ridicule the French for their position against an invasion of Iraq, no doubt you praise the British for their support. Well, it is true that we have the support of the British Prime Mininister (Mr. Blair). It is also true that 85% of the British people, do not support their own Prime minister or us. Why do you ignore that fact?

Some reference the French governments refusal to let us overyfly France when we chose to attack Libya. Those of you also praise the British for permitting our aircraft to depart from British bases and overfly the UK. Of course you are entitled to your opinons. However, you seem to forget that, in that case, the French people opposed their government and took our side. The British people also opposed their government and ours, and masses of them showed their opposition by burning the US flag in the streets of London, in living color. To my knowledge, the people of France have never burned the American flag in the streets of Paris. How come you French bashers never remember that?

Why are you not raising an outcry against the Germans? They don't support us either? How quick you seem to forget what the Germans did to all of Europe and to us.

Have we ever been at war with the French. Have they ever attacked us or killed our people at any time in history? It seems to me, that the only reason we love to hate the French is because they don't let us tell them what to do, and they are "arrogant" enough to see themselves as more than our equals, not militarily, but as a people. Are you sure it is the French that are arrogant or is it we who are arrogant because we think we're better than them? Objectively, it seems like we are very much alike, which is probably why we don't like them. They are too much like us, i.e., arrogant and self-centered.

Somebody, please explain to me (if you can) what is the difference between Sadaam Hussein and the Iraqi government ignoring UN resolutions for 12 years, and the Israeli government ignoring UN resolutions for 50 years? I would really like to know. It looks to me like this is not about who ignores UN resolutions. It's about who we like and who we do not like. We ourselves are about to "ignore the UN" because our President does not agree with its opinion. What's the difference?

By now, I'm sure that most of you have decided that I am just another darned liberal, left-wing, anti-war, SOB. After all I dare to question YOUR motives and that surely means that I am anti-American too. Right?

Well, you're full of it! I have worn my country's uniform with pride, and have fought in its wars myself ... also with pride. So did my brothers and brothers in law. So did my father and his father before him. So did my nephews. My son would have too, but he was the wrong age ... too young, and then too old.

I support our military personell and always have. They don't make wars and they never have. All they do is fight the wars created by politicians. They have always done so, with dignity and honor and courage. They deserve our praise, our trust and our respect. This is NOT their war, and neither were any of the others. If they are ordered to invade Iraq, I will support them in that too and pray for their success. So should every American.

However, do not confuse support for our military with support for our government's political decisions. The United States government, is not the same as the US military. Our military is but a tool of the politicians.

I supported WWII. I supported the Korean War. I supported the Gulf War. I support what we are doing in Afghanistan, and I support what we are doing in the Balkans. I did not support the Vietnam war, and I do not support this Bush war. Why, because we are doing this for all the wrong reasons, just like we did Vietnam for the wrong reasons, IMO.

Yes, Sadaam is an evil man and a dictator and I wish he was not in power. But, I am not willing to sacrifice the life of one young American to remove him. When we expelled him from Kuwait, that was proper and justified. Not because we were "defending Kuwaiti freedom". That's BS. There has never been any Kuwaiti freedom to defend and there is none now. I supported that because I believe that nations should adhere to the rule of law. No nation should be free to invade another nation, that has not attacked it, mereley because it "doesn't like its government or its leader". That concept applies to my nation as well. Might, does not make right.

When the US decides to invade another country because it doesn't like that country's dictator or government, that is little different from Hussein's invasion of Kuwait .... illigitimate.

If the government of Iraq is to be removed for violating UN resolutions, why don't we remove the government of Israel for doing the same thing? How do we justify the US invading another country, without UN sanction? What's so different about that. Is it OK just because we have the military power to do it?

Why do we call the Pakinistani dictator our ally, when we had to bribe him and his country with money to gain his support? Is his country a democracy or is he just another dictator paid to be on our side. Why are we offering our allies the Turks, billions of $$, to change the vote of their parliment, which does not at this time want our army in their country?

I respect everyone's right to support his war, but I also respect the right of those who do NOT support this war. There is nothing more "American" than freedom of expression. When you are willing to take freedom of desent away from those of us that disagree with you, then it is YOU that are anti-American.

 

[Boeingman]

You are quite probably correct. So is Russia's position. Now that we know that, would someone please tell me .....

What is the position of the US based upon?

How about non compliance with UN resolution 1441?

 

[350DRIVER]

There are many high ranking officials in the US military who are questioning Bush's true intentions for launching a war in Iraq. Bush should be focusing on the economy.

How true this point is. The main problem is that a complete lack of evidence is not helping "W" out nor is the current shape of our economy. I will reiterate the same point one more time, I am not anti-war BUT without any evidence it is extremely hard to suppport military action against a country that poses no threat to us. I do have the utmost of respect for our service men and women and can only pray and hope for their safe return IF "W" does proceed with this action which now looks like it will happen.


3 5 0

 

[DIRT]

350Driver / Surplus1

Let's suppose we go into Iraq and find all sorts of chemical / biological weapons or what if Iraq uses these weapons against us during the possible upcoming invasion. Will that vindicate "W" and be the "smoking gun" the UN has been looking for all along?

 

[metrodriver]

I think SH has the right and will use them. He is the one being attacked! When you talk about WMD, why don't we attack Russia (and all the former Soviet states), France, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Israel. These countries all have nuclear weapons or the means to make them. Most of them probably have some biological / chemical stuff laying around also. Quite a few of these countries don't stick to UN resolutions.
I don't understand the Clinton administration bashing. some of you guys really walk around with republican blinders. Clinton wanted to take out SH, but there is one rule about war and that is you don't take out the leader. That's the only reason they didn't kill him in the early 90's.OBL has also been on the Clinton's to capture list, and nearly got captured. Clinton was also very instrumental in trying to get a peace solution in Israel, haven't heard much from dubya on that front lately. The Clinton administration did a lot of things somewhat secretly, the current administration has to post it's feelings for the world on the 6 o'clock news every day. Also, the budget surplus created during the Clinton administration and being used for our social security in a few years is gone, turned into a major deficit and when we are ready to get the check, it will not come because of lack of funds. Sure BC had his affairs with women, but so did a lot more folks in the white house or capitol hill.
It's time some of you start listening or watching to the BBC on PBS, gives you quite a broader view on things than FOX, ABC, NBC, CNN combined. And forget the newspapers with their quarterpage section dedicated to the 'world'.

 

[350DRIVER]

Let's suppose we go into Iraq and find all sorts of chemical / biological weapons or what if Iraq uses these weapons against us during the possible upcoming invasion.

Then you can laugh at me and say "I told you so" and I will resign myself to the fact that I was completely wrong and incorrect to "assume" what I have posted. How likely is it that a "smoking gun" will be found.?? I find it highly unlikely and improbable considering that weapon inspectors have been on the ground in Iraq for how long now(?) and have been able to prove (evidence) very little if anything exists. I highly doubt Iraq has been able to "hide" all of these weapons in such a short time period (my opinion). Regardless when we go to war (which seems is a given now) even IF "W" cannot prove that a smoking gun exists it will be a cop out and he will attempt to use other propaganda to prove his justification for this war. I truly hope that I am completely wrong and that my assumptions are also just as wrong because if we go and remove this guy from power and end up killing many of the innocent and we find no weapons of mass destruction then we are really not going to be making too many new friends nor is "W".

Will that vindicate "W" and be the "smoking gun" the UN has been looking for all along?

I just hope that there is much more evidence than has been made public. How much more evidence is out there.?? I think very little since it ALL would have been made PUBLIC by now since he needs (or has tried) to drum up support world wide for this war, that is why I have a feeling that very little if any evidence is being kept back. Show me the evidence and I am a believer that this war is a must and is completely justified, (evidence) is all I ask for as well as the many many millions of Americans that are against this attack.

The war is against terrorism and for American and World security.

Come on now.... I don't think too many are concerned with Iraqi tanks driving down main street in LA or NYC. How many other countries think the same.?? They pose absolutely no threat to our safety or security, look at the facts and show us how they are tied into the "terrorism" attacks that occured 9-11.. The bigger war "should" be on the economy which has went down hill since "W" took office, unemployment rates (record highs), etc, etc, etc, he is only using this as a diversionary tactic and buying time.

Now my only objection to war is that Congress needs to declare war.... And we should NEVER EVER consult the United Nations....

What a brilliant statement, fortunately you are in the minority on this one and it will never happen, enough said....

(I pray that after the invasion we will actually find all the WMD that he allegedly has. If we don't, then I guess we'll have to "plant" them or someone is going to look awful stupid.)

I hope the same however I find it somewhat unlikely that all these WMD are going to appear out of the blue during the attack especially after all this time has passed since UN security inspectors have been on the ground IN Iraq and have found pretty much nothing.- hope I am wrong though since "w" is going to look extremely stupid to many other countries.


c h e e r s

3 5 0

 

[A Squared]

Boeingman;

In response to Surplus 1's question:


You are quite probably correct. So is Russia's position. Now that we know that, would someone please tell me .....

What is the position of the US based upon?

You wrote:

How about non compliance with UN resolution 1441?

It would seem that you are unable or unwilling to read beyond the first paragraph of Surplus 1's post. Otherwise you would have seen that he adressed the question of non-compliance with UN resolutions.

I will paraphrase his questions:

If you believe, as you have stated that non-compliance with a UN resolution is in itself justification for a preemptive invasion, why haven't we invaded Israel? Or at least reduced thier 6.something billion dollars a year in foerign aid? After all, Israel has ignored many UN resolutions which address clear and unambiguous violations of international law, and they've been doing it since 1948.

So which is it? Non-compliance with a UN resolution compells us to use military action or it doesn't.

One or the other, pick one.

Or perhaps you would like to combine the choices and adopt the stance that UN resolutioons must be obeyed when it's our enemies, but they are optional when it's our allies.

Do you suppose that the rest of the world is so simple minded that they can't see the hypocricy of that position?

regards

 

[capt_zman]

Look at the opposite point of view in relation to U.N. resolutions and Israel. We have a vested interest in the well being of Israel, much the same as Russia and France have in Iraq. Then why isn't another country pushing for a resolution against Israel? Why hasn't anybody gotten the whole world to agree on a disarmament of Israel? Why hasn't anybody threatened the use of force (with allies) against Israel?

When this happens, we'll see what the world has to say. Until then, we'll look at reality and resolution 1441.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>>Then why isn't another country pushing for a resolution against Israel?

Uhhhh z-man, you're missing the point. There already *ARE* UN resolutions and Israel *HAS* thubed thier collective noses at them.

THe question still stands. Why is it acceptable for Israel to be in non-compliance with numerous UN resolutions, but it is wrong for Iraq?

I'm not advocating letting Iraq slide, I'm just pointing out the hypocricy which is evident to the rest of the world.


>>>>>>>Israel does not threaten us or anyone else in the world.

Well, the Palestinians who have been systematicly displaced from the lands they have occupies for 1800 years would beg to differ. The families (if any are left) of the numerous villages that the israelis massacred would beg to differ.

regards

 

[414Flyer]

Or perhaps that we armed Iraq under Hussien in the 80's? He was just as much of a S.O.B. back then but since he hasn't been our S.O.B lately, we'll have to teach him a lesson. Di
.

Name one weapon we gave him

 

[414Flyer]

How about non compliance with UN resolution 1441?

Or about 16 others too, and also the terms of the ceasefire.

As far as I am concerned, Gulf War (1 or 2, depending on your timeline) has not ended. There was a negotiated ceasefire signed by Iraq, but which was not lived up to. That to me invalidates the ceasefire.

 

[capt_zman]

A Squared,

Question 1 was answered, how about these?

Why hasn't anybody gotten the whole world to agree on a disarmament of Israel?

Why hasn't anybody threatened the use of force (with allies) against Israel?


Why doesn't one of these other countries step up and drive the bus?

 

[Ponypilot]

Great Debate

Gentlemen,

Thank you for a very interesting day, I have been following this post all day and have to say how much I'm enjoying this very intellectually stimulating debate.

So many valid points, but it is past quitting time and I'm heading home.

Again Thank you all for such interesting and different points of view.

 

[Draginass]

Well, you know when you (Arabs/Palestinians) wage several wars of anilation against someone (Jews) and LOSE. . . . guess what happens?


The French? Irrelevant whiners with no credibility and no balls. Watch after the war . . . . the French will try and horn in on victory and demand a place at the table, which they won't get.

Reason for chumminess with Sadaam Hussein? Check out the French oil company "TOTAL" and their economic interests in keeping Sadaam in power. Check out Chirac's personal friendship ($$$) with Sadaam.

The French? Forget 'em. I think it's going to a very quiet tourist season in Paris this year.

 

[surplus1]

Look at the opposite point of view in relation to U.N. resolutions and Israel. We have a vested interest in the well being of Israel, much the same as Russia and France have in Iraq. Then why isn't another country pushing for a resolution against Israel? Why hasn't anybody gotten the whole world to agree on a disarmament of Israel? Why hasn't anybody threatened the use of force (with allies) against Israel?

When this happens, we'll see what the world has to say. Until then, we'll look at reality and resolution 1441.

You are asking good questions, but the answers are readily avialable.

1) Yes, the US has a vested interest in the well being of Israel, as you point out. I encourage you to ask yourself WHY that is so. [In case you are wondering about me personally I'll save you the time. I am pro Jewish, but anti-Zionist.]

2) The US has repeatedly used its veto in the Security Council to block resolutions and actions that it deems unfavorable to Israel.

3) Israel's arms and the money to maintain its military is supplied by the United States.

4) No one in the world is capable of "threatening to use force" against Israel and have that threat mean anything. The reason for that is elementary. Israel has the full and unqualified support of the Government of the United States. Which country or group of countries do you think has the ability to take on the USA in a military confrontation over Israel? I'll answer it for you, NONE.

5) Israel has "won" several wars with its neighbors. Did that really happen because of the mighty Israeli military, or did it happen due the unqualifed support provided by the United States?

The whole world, with the exception of Iraq, wants Sadaam to be disarmed. That isn't the problem and it is why we were able to get Res 1441 passed unanimously.

The disagreement is over the method chosen unilaterally by the United States Government. Most countries to not want to invade at this time. Most countries do not wish to be dictated to by the USA any more than they wish to be dictated to by SH. Most countries do not accept the concept that the United States may do as it chooses, in the world community, merely because it has the military power to back it up. Today Iraq, tomorrow whom?

Once this happens, I can only wonder what the United States will do when the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan and recover their territory. Will we go to war with China to pevent it or will we merely abandon the Taiwanese?

If Sadaam attacks Israel, as he did the last time, the current government of Israel will respond militarily. What do you think the aftermath of that will finally become? And, no, I don't mean the outcome of the battles; we know the answer to that. What will be the future result over the long term?

In 1989 (or thereabouts), the Israeli military made a preemptive strike against an Iraqi nuclear development and took it out. I agreed with that. However, Israel did not invade Iraq or try to change its government.

The Bush administration's doctrine of "premptive strikes" for the purpose of achieving "regime change" reverses traditional American values and would not exist but for the fact that US military might is unchallenged and the tragedy of 9-11. IMO, it is bad policy. This President, George W. Bush, has no problem being a bully on an international scale.

GWB, will soon be gone. Even if he should be "re-elected" or "elected" for the first time, depending on your perspective, he can't be President beyond 2008. The rest of the United States and its people will have to live with the consequences of this new doctrine, way beyond that point in time.

Keep in mind please, that throughout the history of nation states, there has almost always been a "super power" that emerged. Soon after that nation became a "super power" it began to throw its weight around militarily and dominate other peoples wherever it could. Before too long, every one of those super powers collapsed and no longer exists.

Personally, I would much prefer that the United States continue to exist indefinitely, than it become just another failed super power that once was.

We do not need the United Nations to control or run the United States, but we do need a world body that can keep rogue nations from each others throats or powerful nations from taking advantage of lesser nations. That is why we orselves were so instrumental in creating the United Nations. It was our baby. Now we're trying to kill it by making it irrevelant so that we can do as our President pleases? I think that is a mistake.

An even greater mistake is the US Congress abdicating its Constitutional responsibility, by transferring to the Executive Branch, the power to declare war. I believe our forefathers were correct. No President, popular or unpopular, should have the power to take this nation to war. I'd like George Bush to go before the Congress and ask it to declare war against Iraq. I'll bet you they would not do that even today. But they copped out and passed a resolution.

The President already had the authority to use military force in defense ot the United States or its interests. He should not have been given the power to declare war against another nation, no matter how unpopular its dictator might be.

I don't want to see us become a rogue nation that ignores the collective will of the overwhelming majority of the world's nations and peoples, just because we have the military power to do so.

Those of you that tell me we "have a lot of support" are playing the same game that the President is playing. We have the support of a few small and relatively insignificant countries, that will do just about anything to get our money, and we are paying them to do so. The ONLY significant government in the world that supports this action is the United Kingdom, and 85% of the people of that country, DO NOT SUPPORT their Prime Minister on this issue.

I realize that we are going to war, no matter who thinks what. I've known that all along. This President and his cabinet, with the exception of the Secretary of State, have no respect for world opinion and never have. His "efforts" in the UN have been a political ploy all along. He is not making this decision tonight, he made it a long time ago, and in the intervening period all he's been doing is running a PR campaign to convince the American people to support him.

Truthfully, I don't think Bush himself is smart enough to plan or orchestrate this on his own, but Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are, along with their cohert Dr. Rice and the folks outside of government that support them (including GB I). Bush himself is akin to the FOX network, which effectively plays to the intellectually challenged. What percentage of our population falls into that category I would not pretend to guess or want to know. It's too frightening.

I pray that God will protect our boys in uniform and the innocent Iraqi's that will suffer from the military activity. Sadaam and his coherts deserve whatever happens to them, but the innocent do not deserve to die because of it.

Perhaps I am wrong, and hopefully it will be proven to me and others like me that we are, but as of now, I see no evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq. It is conspicuous by its absence.

God has truly blessed America, but he won't continue to do so if we allow ourselves to become like the other super powers that have faded into history.

Please pray for our troops and for the innocent, especially the children.

 

[Boeingman]

Check out the French oil company "TOTAL" and their economic interests in keeping Sadaam in power. Check out Chirac's personal friendship ($$$) with Sadaam.

Or Amarada Hess.

 

[bugchaser]

Hey 350 do you really believe that crap that you are spewing? Your assessment of the situation really makes me wonder about your intelligence. Maybe you should catch a ride over to France and stay there. I am so tired of people like you putting up your criticisms of the administration without any information to base it on. Do you have access to intelligence briefs? Are you an expert on any of the threats that may be facing us? Are you an economist? No, you are an airplane driver that takes bits and pieces of news info and combines that with your political slant to come up with all kinds of criticism of our gov. Everyone please take a look at our administration. No matter what you think of President Bush, you have to admit that we have an excellent cabinet with lots of experience. Does anyone really believe that all these intelligent people want to go to war? Maybe there is a reason for all of this that is not known to us right now. You don't really think that we know all the facts do you? Think about this for just a little. Finally, for all of you that don't agree, now is the time to shut up and get behind your country and our troops. If you do not want to do that please exit the country or come see me for a better explanation.

 

[Singlecoil]

Does anyone really believe that all these intelligent people want to go to war? Maybe there is a reason for all of this that is not known to us right now.

Decide for yourself...

At the time the Gulf War ended in 1991, Powell was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Wolfowitz was deputy secretary of defense for policy, the third-highest ranking civilian in then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney's Pentagon. Powell was instrumental in stopping the war short of going to Baghdad and removing Saddam Hussein. Wolfowitz and other hardliners were less than enthusiastic about that decision.

"Paul Wolfowitz believed then that it was a mistake to end the war," says Richard Perle, chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board and a veteran of the Reagan administration. "They underestimated the way in which Saddam was able to cling to power, and the means he would use to remain in power. That was the mistake."

Soon after the Gulf War, Wolfowitz supervised the drafting of a set of classified policy guidelines, called a Defense Planning Guidance, for how the U.S. should deal with Saddam Hussein and the rest of the world in the post-Cold War era. Wolfowitz believed containment was an old idea -- a relic of the Cold War -- and that America should use its overwhelming military might preemptively, and unilaterally, if need be. His draft of these policy guidelines was leaked to the press in 1992.

"Inside the U.S. defense planning establishment, there were people who thought this thing was nuts," Barton Gellman of The Washington Post tells FRONTLINE. "The first draft said that the United States would be prepared to preempt the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons by any other nation, even, the document said, 'Where our interests are otherwise not engaged.' ... It spoke of punishing or retaliating for that use, but it also said 'preempt.' This was the first time."

"Wolfowitz basically authored a doctrine of American hegemony," says historian and foreign policy expert John Lewis Gaddis, "a doctrine in which the United States would seek to maintain the position that it came out of the Cold War with, at which there were no obvious or plausible challengers to the United States. That was considered quite shocking in 1992. So shocking, in fact, that the Bush administration, at that time, disavowed it."

As the first President Bush left office, Wolfowitz's draft plan went into the bottom drawer, but it would not be forgotten.

Link

 

[350DRIVER]

bugchaser-

I probably would be concerned if I were you of the long term health risks from getting so close to the ag chemicals, from your posts it sure seems like you have gotten some in your system.

I am so tired of people like you putting up your criticisms of the administration without any information to base it on.

Well you are just going to be getting alot more tired since there are millions like I out there who don't buy into propaganda as you do. You are as bad as the media, you have no evidence or proof of anything other then relying on ignorant false opinions. I hope you stay on the bandwagon since it probably will do you good.

Sen. Tom Daschle pretty much summed it up in his speech...

Your assessment of the situation really makes me wonder about your intelligence.

Well I hope you wonder alot since common sense is hard for many to grasp. You will come around the bend soon I would only hope.

Maybe there is a reason for all of this that is not known to us right now.

That was funny, classy


3 5 0

 

[Cardinal]

You are as bad as the media, you have no evidence or proof of anything other then relying on ignorant false opinions.

Bush & Powell quote numbers, quantities, places, people, specifications and conversations. You and every bum off the street says "there's no evidence." Now who am I inclined to believe?

I enjoyed a commentary on TV the other night. A reporter visited a school outside of which a little anti-war rally was being held. First he spoke to this gum-chewing 5th grader.

5th Grader: "We have to stop bombing Iraq, and all these people are dying, and it's just wrong"
Reporter: "You know we aren't at war with Iraq yet..."
5th grader: "Oh. Hmm, really, but...?"
This 5th grader, all of 11 years old, was carrying a poster that said "Make love, not War." The reporter commented that perhaps this child was too young for either subject.

Speaking to a high-school student who was also toting an anti-war sign.
Reporter: "Who is the president of Iraq?"
Freshman: "Uh, er, I wanna say Osama somebody, but, uh is that him?"
Reporter: "No"
Freshman: "Oh, man, uh, you sure it ain't? I thought it starts with an O..."
Reporter: "Perhaps you mean Saddam Hussein?"
Freshman: "Yeah, yeah, that must be him"

I also enjoyed Fred Durst's comment at the Grammys:
"I hope we all in aggreance here, that this war has got to stop..."
Well Fred, if you weren't paying enough attention in school to learn basic grammar or vocabulary, I have to assume that you didn't get much out of World History, either. Therefore your opinion is valueless.

This is the calibre of individual we get lectured by.

 

[100LL... Again!]

--------------------------------------------------
Well, the Palestinians who have been systematicly displaced from the lands they have occupies for 1800 years would beg to differ. The families (if any are left) of the numerous villages that the israelis massacred would beg to differ.
--------------------------------------------------


Not this old lie again. It is real easy for closet anti-semites to believe, however, They really, really want to believe it.
Thank the Germans and the French for the state of Israel if you are so opposed to it. Hate is always very ugly. Joseph Goebbels would love you.

 

[surplus1]

Simple solution to all world problems. Nuke all the pacifists. They only breed liberal pu$$ies. All our problems arise from this country being neutered by the tree huggers and queers, and those of us quiet mainstream types sitting idly by watching the squeaky wheel get the oil. If you're not part of the solution, then shut the F__K up.

Is there any possibility you might consider following your own advice?

I hope, I hope, I hope.

 

[350DRIVER]

Bush & Powell quote numbers, quantities, places, people, specifications and conversations. You and every bum off the street says "there's no evidence." Now who am I inclined to believe

What a complete "joke". After reading some of your replies Cardinal I had thought you could have done much better than that one.... Number, quantities, places, people, specs, and conversations?? W has been able to show the world absolutely no proof at all, hell he can't even get a UN support in his favor nor can he even get our allies on his side- Denial, brainwashed, propaganda I think sums it up.


come on..

3 5 0

 

[EagleRJ]

French U-turn

Seems like the French have suddenly changed their mind, and say they will support the removal of Saddam if he uses chemical or biological weapons.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1084093,00.html

It appears that they have either realized that they are about to enjoy a large slice of humble pie, or they don't want to be on the losing side (a la Italy circa 1944).

I think our message to the French should be clear:

"Thank you, but your help is not needed or wanted"

 

[Britpilot]

While you ridicule the French for their position against an invasion of Iraq, no doubt you praise the British for their support. Well, it is true that we have the support of the British Prime Mininister (Mr. Blair). It is also true that 85% of the British people, do not support their own Prime minister or us. Why do you ignore that fact?


Some reference the French governments refusal to let us overyfly France when we chose to attack Libya. Those of you also praise the British for permitting our aircraft to depart from British bases and overfly the UK. Of course you are entitled to your opinons. However, you seem to forget that, in that case, the French people opposed their government and took our side. The British people also opposed their government and ours, and masses of them showed their opposition by burning the US flag in the streets of London, in living color. To my knowledge, the people of France have never burned the American flag in the streets of Paris. How come you French bashers never remember that?
[/u]. [/B]

Where did this 85% of British people come from? An opinion poll no doubt that are more often than not, wrong.

The majority of British people did support the bombing of Libya, their only wish was to send in the SAS so we could have eliminated Gadaffi.

I too have seen the US flag burned, it was in the streets of Paris, it has happened on more than one occasion. I was in london at that time and I don't recall "masses" of people in the streets burning flags. I have also seen the British flag burned and not mention a few Beatles albums too. Those that do these things do not represent the silent majority in any country.

Sadam supports terror and finances it in several ways that are very well documented. It is time for him to go.

 

[Tim47SIP]

350- You are a work of art

How true this point is. The main problem is that a complete lack of evidence is not helping "W" out nor is the current shape of our economy. I will reiterate the same point one more time, I am not anti-war BUT without any evidence it is extremely hard to suppport military action against a country that poses no threat to us. I do have the utmost of respect for our service men and women and can only pray and hope for their safe return IF "W" does proceed with this action which now looks like it will happen.

Refering to Houses original statement inferring that Senior Military Officers are questioning Bushes intentions and tactics, you to are agreeing. As I asked House and got no reply, and since you know the answer, let us know who the senior officers are!!!

Additionally, you have spent several months or more in Iraq, correct?? Of course you have or you wouldnt have all of that vast knowledge. Let me tell you something, unless you have spent time there, you need not be preaching something you know nothing about. I was over there and saw first hand what SH did. I picked up the very first POW's of the ground war, 12-16 year olds and old men over 60 that could barely walk. They were involuntarily recruited and placed on the front lines. I saw several POW's that SH's army tried to kill for surrendering, i.e. running over their legs with tanks, cutting off limbs, ears, pokeing out eyes, etc. Many of whom died in route while we tried to get them to a hospital. SH ordered these fatalities, they were not from the U.S. bombings. Do you remember the Serian death squads hired by SH, ya, I thought so. He has attacked two countries and he will attack again.
If it was oil, we would have taken it years ago. I'll bet you wont even agree to opening the new Alaskan northern banks oil area like GW wanted to so we could become more independent. Secondly, when is the last time the U.S. EVER occupied and took over a nation for them to rule. When have they not left those countries better than they entered it? Try to look at the big picture and not just your little world. There is plenty of evidence!
Just announced on the news and CNN, SH has ordered the use of chemical warefare. HMMMM, thought he didn't have anything! Give me a break.