what new revelation about George Bush and his case for war did we hear this week? Well, the New York Times says that Bush and Cheney used the statements of a known likely liar as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. Of course, the intelligence document was kept "classified" until after the presidential election. Just throw that one on top of the mountain of evidence that Bush lied. But, hey... gays still can't call themselves "married" and "under God" is still in the pledge, so too bad about those 2047 deaths, eh? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1288933200&en=5a216116a0310ce1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
that has nothing to do with anything. even if bush passed a law that officially declared that gays were terrible, it would mean nothing. it is insignificant to the point of not being worth mention. the "under god" should not be in the pledge, but that has nothing to do with bush, and whoever you vote for whouldnt change that either. one thing matters: only the spread of free democracies can end the long-term global threat of muslim terrorists that has existed forever. thats all you need to remember. WMD, saddam, lies, indictments, all BS. spread democracy in the middle east and our kids might not have to watch muslim terrorists continiung to blow up innocent people periodically. or, choose to be a scoundrel and a coward and continue to let radical islam spread. watch as the crazies strengthen, and corrupt regimes allow the muslim lunatics to fester. allow terrorists to dictate our policy to us by sending us home scared. remind terrorists that if they kill enough americans, political pressure will force american leaders to back out. teach terrorists that you can accomplish goals by killing people. radical muslims pretty much do one thing, they kill infidels. let them live, they kill infidels. kill them, and make their society one that is free and open, and their kind dies out. that is the only solution, the only choice. that is the issue. babble over bush all you want, but you are wasting time with politics and acting like a child who cannot stomach the only real solution.
- Saddam's government was secular, not Muslim, and not terrorist. If our goal was to eliminate governments that were spreading Islamic terrorism we attacked the wrong target. - To think what we're doing in Iraq is "spreading democracy" is quite naive considering the nature of the proposed new Constitution that mirrors Iran's in deference to Sharia law. - Iraq was not a breeding ground for radical Muslim terrorists until Bush turned it into one. - We did not invade on a "spreading democracy" basis. That premise would not have been sufficient to win public backing for this war, that's why Bush felt compelled to lie about WMDs. - Bush promised in his first campaign that he would not engage in nationbuilding. - I firmly believe that if Bill Clinton had launched this dishonest war that every rightwinger in this country would be screaming for his impeachment. As it stands, every time he launched a cruise missile at an Al Qaeda base he was accused of endangering foreign relations for the sake of politics.
well now it will be a free democracy. even better. and now neighbors of iraq will see how freedom works. it makes countries rich and happy. if that is the case, then we certainly cant leave now. 1. i dont care. i wanted war either way. even if there was never a single wmd. 2. wmd was one of many justifications. it is the one liberals always cry about now, but i never really cared about it. read bush's speech to the UN before the war and you will see many more reasons than WMD to invade iraq. so what, maybe you dont trust bush. i do. plus a strong argument can be made that sept 11th made the world a different place, and that promise no longer applied. i dont care. i am not a rightwinger and i hate jesus and i advocate baby killing and desecrating everythgin religious. i would have been happy if clinton started killing muslims by the thousands. i prefer to discuss the present rather than what right wingers would have done to clinton. i dont care what they would have done, they can be stupid.
Again, that's mighty optimistic considering the insurgency and the constitution which installs Sharia as law. Since WE deposed the dictator we should have forced a secular constitution upon them, just as we imposed a constitution upon Japan.
maybe that is optimistic, but what is your solution to the problem of radical islam? yunno they periodically murder lots of people. yunno like in spain and london and a mile from where i sit now in america. and this has been going on for a long time, and it is getting worse. muslims are terrible and violent and in their backward societies they plan our deaths because we are infidels. we must either kill them or change them. if we pull out of iraq we leave a cesspool of chaos and religious lunatics. if you want a cause, work on making america more secular, i will be on your team and we can try to make this war into more of a war for freedom and security than a holy war of christians vs muslims. because secularizing things and establishing free and open societies is the only solution. do you know of anything better? maybe you are right there. i do not know. but dont you advocate leaving? if you favor imposing a constitution on them, then how will leaving help that happen?
My solution to radical Islam is to tell those ****ers that I'll blow the Kabaa and the rest of Mecca to smithereens if their attacks don't stop. I would prove to them that their god is a phony who can't even protect his own holy places. Attacking Iraq on lies was boneheaded, and only served to get thousands of our people needlessly killed. We WILL NOT win in Iraq.
You should put this in your signature. You'll win the hearts of 90% of your current detractors at TF! :hihi::thumb:
It probably wouldn't work on the deranged terrorists in Al Qaida. They would love to see us do that--it would be the ultimate vindication of everything they have said about us. I even think that some of those crazy bastards might bomb Mecca and try to blame us for it. But nuclear intimidation sure as hell works on sovereign countries. It has been long rumored that in 1973, Israel covertly informed key Arab governments that if Israel was ever in danger of being overrun they could expect to see mushroom clouds over Mecca and Messina. Egypt and Jordan soon signed peace treaties with Israel, Saudi Arabia stopped funding military aggression against Israel, and Syria has focused on occupying Lebanon and has apparently abandoned plans to push Israel into the sea. They just want the Golan back. But the nuclear threat on Mecca had no effect on Palestinian terrorists--all they care about is Jerusalem. The US doesn't even need to threaten any country. We have already actually used nuclear weapons against cities in wartime. We have invaded, sacked, and occupied countries. No one has forgotten. If Iran, Pakistan, or Korea ever hit a US city or a US overseas base with a nuclear weapon . . . they better start digging deep holes. But I seriously doubt we would threaten a nuclear attack to deter Al Qaida terrorists. They have no military assets to hit. They have no industrial base to crumble. They don't even have a civilian population to intimidate. It's the wrong weapon for the job. Turning Mecca into volcanic glass might satisfy our anger, but it wouldn't destroy our enemies because they aren't there. And it sure as hell wouldn't make them give up. I think the only way to deal with guerrillas and terrorists is covertly using Special Operations Forces and intelligence agencies. The money that the occupation of Iraq is costing us would fund a vast increase in the size of our special forces and black CIA operations. We have to go after these guys where they are hiding, even if it means operating covertly in the territory of "allies" like Pakistan. Better that these terrorists just start disappearing, than to make nuclear threats that won't really hurt them.
On this, all of us agree. But democracy has always spread from within. A population has to want democracy, they have to earn democracy, and they have to desire freedom enough to fight for it themselves. We can't just force people to be democratic. It has never worked that way. We can kill dictators and strongmen, but others will only arise if the people do not stand up and fight for it as we did in this country and make it work. Where were these people, yearning to be free when Saddam was in power? Why did they not fight Saddam like they are fighting us? The Iraqis have not earned democracy and they never will as long as we are there. The struggle between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites has been going on for millenia. Sooner or later they are going to have to fight this all out. And it ain't our fight. What is the real solution, Great One? Invade each moslem country one-by-one and try to occupy them with a too-small army? What the hell does that do but buy us but more enemies and impoverish us? The ragheads will never be democratic, there is not a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. It is likely incompatible with Islam. Nation building in a hostile land is a fools errand and this is exactly the failed Bush foreign policy that you defend. Westernizing the Middle East is not what the US went to war over, the Crusades ended 1,000 years ago. Saddam is captured, there are no WMD's, and we have won. What are we doing hangin' round? There are other fights coming where these troops will be needed. What has been successful is what the British have practised for several centuries and which we have also used successfully. If a country is effectively ruled by a strongman, then you engineer a sympathetic strongman into power. By this tactic, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arbia, The Gulf States, Kuwait, Brunei, and many other muslim countries are friendly to us.
