That would explain their horrible economic policies. These same people were calling Afghanistan a mess, a quagmire 6 months into the war. But, but Saddam didn't know about them. They also forget one of the terrorist camps had a section on highjacking airplanes.
Well, ashgeaux, finally there is somebody besides marc who knows how to conduct a civil debate. Excellent. A few counter-points: Yes, superficially, but they cannot be trusted. The government is shaky and not supported by the military, which has failed to capture bin Laudin who lives in Pakistan. The chances of a military coup or an islamic revolution are high in Pakistan. This is a country that has burned a US embassy and generally despises us. Pakistani scientsits have admitted to illegal nulcear proliferation by spreading atomic bomb technology to North Korea, Iran, and others. We are going to end up fighting Pakistan some day. No, I don't think we should invade North Korea, but we had damn well better be prepared for a major war there when they come over the DMZ into South Korea. Or if they lob a nuclear missile at Japan or at US bases in Okinawa, which the crazy little bastard that runs the place has threatened to do. And now he probably suspects that the US is too tied down in Iraq to deal with him and that the US public would not support another war from this administration. He is correct on both counts. Meanwhile Bush had reduced troop levels in Korea to reinforce Iraq. Korea is a major war waiting to happen, we've had plenty of warning, and if we get caught with our pants down because the president is dinking around in Iraq . . . well, history will treat him badly. No evidence exists of this, only misleading statements from people who should have known better. Saddam did not get along with bin Ladin. The terrorism in Iraq right now is only happening because we are there. Well, not according to the administrations own investigation on the matter that came out this week. He didn't have that capacity since 1991 and his existing stocks were destroyed by the UN inspectors. See the link in post 1 of this thread. There is no doubt that Bush is banging his fist on the table. Whether or not it is the right table is open to question.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why they support Kerry Its funny that I don't see any articles ever from people around here excited for Kerry, its all anti-Bush. Kerry has no foreign policy now. He says that we shouldn't have gone in *alone*, he can do it better and can make a grand coalition but he insults the allies we have now and the leader in Iraq as well. France and Germany have come out and say they want no part of it no matter who's president. Kerry is for a global test and thinks the inspectors should've stayed and the UN, France, Germany and Russia could've gone on with the UN oil for food along with Saddam forever. In using Kerry's own words, It sounds like his policies are more of the same from the last 14 years and he supports the UN which is the organization of the bribed and the co-ersed. This is part of the pre-911 policy that Kerry has and *anyone* voting for him has the same mindset. Has anyone on this thread or in this forum that is bashing Bush ever had anything positive about Kerry and his postions? :nope: :dis:
I can't believe I missed this post... It's good to see someone not from the Micheal Moore side of the Democratic Party. I agree, but I see them as I see Saudi Arabia. We can't trust them, but I rather them be working with us somewhat rather than none. It's our best interest to keep the current government in place. I know their citizens hate them cooperating with us. I knew you didn't think that. South Korea is a pretty good ally and we've trained them well. The guy has an ego problem, but I don't think he's gonna cross over soon, but what do I know. I can't argue with that. I would say that Iraq shows him that we don't mess around anymore. I think that could be a key message. It's one of the reasons I want Bush re-elected. Not yet. We were there mostly training the South Koreans, I believe. They are trained. I think the Navy will handle North Korea. I'm actually glad our ground troops will be out of there. In case something happens we can retalliate without hurting our own. I know that they didn't get along, but their is proof they or their followers met at times. There was report on ABC about it and a lot of talk from the media here and in Britain in the late 90's. It's in the 9/11 Commission and Senate Inteligence Report. I get tired of typing that, but it's the only sources that are reliable enough. There's other intel too, but I don't want to go searching for. I do agree with your last statement, although there were terrorist in their prior. The ones there now are mostly new. I would rather that fight happen. Rather than them bring it here. These same people hated us before, it didn't spring up just because of Iraq. He had the capacity, it said he could have had biological weapons in the matter of weeks or months. He was just waiting to be free of the sanctions that were deterioating. Duelfer said they would be gone by now. It also says he had every intention of restarting it. Yeah. I've said this to Crawfish a few times. It's two different views on the War on Terror, doesn't make either side right or wrong. I understand your point of view completely, but I also think this war could bring a new light to the Middle East. I don't consider myself a neo-con, but I think anything is better than what it was. We'll see in about 5 - 10 years what it'll all mean.
