Ok, ok... sorry i brought this up. And please do not put words in my mouth. I think Bush is a damn good leader. He has the ability to maintain control of the country and make our people feel at ease. I still don't agree with him. I wanted opinions and I got what I didn't want to hear--bashes. You know what? You don't have to worry about me running the ****in country, I have NO such inclinations. I just wanted to hear what AMERICANS thought of this, yet you take this opportunity to bash me...fine. This is the first and last political topic i ever bring up. Also, the U.N. (in it's current state) is horrid, I'll admit, but America is not doing too much to make things right. Say what you want, but I believe that without staunch allies, the next war will be ENTIRELY too much for America alone. Hell, just Iraq is apparently almost too much. Just think if NK or China or other commies came togehter with Islamic radicals... America wouldn't be able to hold its head up on that many fronts. But, I digress, because I'm not a political guru, and neither are any of you, so quit thinking that you're all high and mighty. Btw, a conservative I AM NOT. I said that I like to think that I transcend parties and stay bipartisan... So Thanks.
Learn what quotation marks mean, my friend... I never said that I believed it, hence the "proof" I talk about. :yelwink2:
Statements like this, by people like you, will be the great downfall to American freedom. Arrogance will only garner you so much before your "enemies" take you down. How can you honestly believe that America can take on the world by itself? Quite frankly, if that ever happens, I hope I'm not around to see it. You do realize that no matter HOW advanced our military is, it cannot take on cowardice acts by terrorist on such a large scale alone. You are really fooling yourself if you believe that we'd be able to pull that off... U.N. do what we say... Ahhhh, that sounds pretty logical considering the hatred for American's in this world. Not to bash republicans, but why do most of you get so damn offensive? Just a serious question.
We need NATO so that we don't go it alone. We had allies long before the UN ever existed. Arrogance? What about UN arrogance? I was just pointing out how some Americans will blame their country first without looking at the UN's way. How about the allegations of UN people taking advantage of women in other countries for instance. This world certainly doesn't need a UN, ever, we were much better off without them. America isn't doing to much to make things right? What does this statement mean? First off, the terrorists attacked us under the Clinton Administration as well as the Bush Administration. I wish some people would get a clue and realize we were declared war on by Al Quada, instead of arguing between ourselves we should be United, fighting the war on terror. I will admit, we should've gone into Pakistan after Afghanistan, I don't agree 100% with everything Bush has and hasn't done but what is the alternative? What would you do since you don't think we are doing the right things? Would you give up American Soviegnty to the UN? If not, What should be done about the UN? You talk about how you don't think the media is independent well I agree but its because of CBS and their fake documents. Did it ever cross your mind that one reason no one wants to touch the memo is because no one else wants to be cut out to dry like Dan Rather and CBS? I think John Kerry would've ran with the ball on this memo if anything was to it, nevermind the news media. I got an Idea, lets bitch about the UN and fix their problems and then lets bitch about America and the President! BTW, I could be wrong but I don't think any conservative Democrat or Liberal Republican would believe a document until proven true or consider the UN the law of the land. You said stuff like this, we didn't. Sorry, no hard feelings, really :yelwink2:
you are the one revising history. i listened to bush and read his speeches and he didnt just emphasize wmd like you guys say. he mentions all the of the violations since the cease fire of the 91 war. read his speech to the UN justifying the war. this war was never just about wmd and bush never claimed it was. that was always pretty obvious to me. you cant fix a country in 3 months.
the UN sucks. other countries suck. there are lots and lots of countries in the UN and many of them are horrible sacks of crap. it isnt our fault they suck. if france (permanant member of the security council) decides they are gonna veto our plans because they are a bunch of surrender monkeys who have sweet deals with saddam, do you think we should obey? do you?
I don't love these ragheads so much, but I am human. I can see that they were oppressed and now can enjoy life a little better. They hate us? Not from what I hear. Most of what I hear talks about how they are so happy to have us there and so grateful for all that we've done. The insurgency isn't Iraqis, but rather other Arabs coming across the borders. THEY'RE the terrorists that we are fighting. Zarqawi? He's Jordanian. Hell, you can watch the news and even learn that the insurgency is not Iraqi. Yes, Saddam is captured, but I'm still not sold that the WMDs were a myth. Look at the country, it's a desert. The Iraqis were able to cover whole fighter jets in the sand that couldn't be found for years. You don't think they couldn't do the same with something smaller, like a WMD? I do. You're right, we do do brilliantly in short wars. Lousy in long ones? What's your basis for that, Vietnam? Lousy politics drove that war, not lousy military strategy. Considering Bush was intent on taking Saddam out of power and liberating Iraq, I think ridding the world of a tyrant was a stated purpose. If you remember the words of Ari Fleisher when we first hit Baghdad from the air, was something along the lines of "the campaign to liberate the people of Iraq has begun." That sounds an awful lot like saying we're ridding the earth of a tyrant. And sure, there are other tyrants around the world. Are they all a threat to us like Saddam was? With Iraq, we get rid of Saddam and give the people a chance at a better life. Al Qaeda still blowing things up while we dick around in Iraq? Sorry, but even if we weren't in Iraq, they would still be blowing things up. In my opinion, success would constitute the Iraqi goverment writing a constitution that is agreed upon and the Iraqi security forces being capable operating without the help of the American military. Sure, we're not there yet, but their security forces are getting better everyday and are having a larger presence in the operations we are conducting. Maybe I'm being too optimistic for thinking this whole thing can be a success. But at the same time, I'll be damned if I think we should just quit now. I owe it to my brothers over there who have given their lives in support of OIF I and II to at least think we should continue to see this through.
Pretty good point. I was still too young remember everything about Desert Storm... Remember... I haven't said that I agree with the memo. I am quite skeptical, and I think that it really proves NOTHING at all. Don't think for a second that I'm some Michael Moore "commie." I swear, some party-extremists hate AMERICANS who view things differently than them more than Bin Laden. None of you, just in general...
I see. I probably should have said NATO or some other organization. I wasn't thinking about all of the UN's problems when I typed that... I was really just referring to some sort of alliance... I just said "UN" for the sake of sparing some bit of ambiguity... :grin: I think America should do what America needs to do. I'd MUCH rather have caught Bin Laden than Hussein. I do realize, though, that Saddam was MUCH more of a threat to us, because Al Qaeda CAN survive without Bin Laden. I still think we should do more to stabilize other countries. Mainly North Korea, which I feel is a MUCH greater threat than Iraq was. Libya too. NO administration is perfect. Still too young to know better, I look at Clinton's terms as successful because we were relatively safe, and the economy is good. As was already stated, that is more a factor of timing than Clinton being better than Bush. I like the fact that most everyone that posted offered some sort of opinion, but I don't like the fact how quick some of you were to put words in my mouth. I'm not an enemy, I'm a proud American.
Don't forget that Iraq also sent some of his air force to Iran or Syria during Desert Storm. I've often thought thats where WMD's might've been sent. I've never understood the people who said that Bush lied because no WMD's were found other than it fits their agenda because it usually takes years to find out the truth. North Korea is nothing more than a puppet to China, China is the country we better be worried about in the future. Clinton? Relatively safe, how about the 1993 WTC bombings, OKlahoma City or are you too young to remember that. Maybe we should ask survivors of the first WTC and Oklahoma City as well as all the school shootings that happened on Clinton's watch! It's all ones perspective really! My point about the school shootings has nothing to do with Clinton, really. The point being that we never had school shootings like in the 90's and I thought it was funny that you were relatively safe. I will agree with you on the timing factors on a president, Clinton was lucky enough to have the computer and internet revolutions on his watch even though he left office with the country sliding into a recession. Any chum could've downsized the military in that situation and payed off debt, especially while ignoring when someone such as Al Quada declared war on us.
