Everything else in your post just ignores everything that has been posted here so far. To your first questions it does not matter. Who cares if we were the only country involved? But you have to admit billions of dollars in oil clouded Russia and France's view point on this war to put it nicely. You know nothing of the middle east if you do not think next year some of our allies and enemies might switch. We supported Iraq against Iran, so what. Do you not consider Abu Nida a terrorist? That is not even going with the other evidence that people debate back in forth about the others. What about trying to kill the first President Bush? Kay also proved that they were up to stuff that they should not have been after 1998. I have admitted there are no sock piles yet, but you cannot throw out the rest of his report.
a few Post 9/11 blunders: 1. Bush ignores the advice of Colin Powell that invading Iraq will cost us international support and saddle us with nation building when we have more important military priorities. 2. Bush ignores the fact that Iraq does not threaten us and has no ties with Al Quiada and squanders our terrorism-fighting resources with an ill-conceived war that will cost him the presidency. 3. Bush fails to prosecute the war in Afghanistan properly and Osama still runs free. 4. Bush ignores the council of Army chief General Shenseki that it will take 300,000 troops to occupy Iraq. He sends a force just adequate to defeat Saddams army, but totally inadequate to keep order in Iraq. One year later and we can't even control the essential strategic road from Bagdad to Jordan. 5. At the worst possible time, Bush reverses 40 years of US policy under all administrations and advocates that Israel can permanently keep the West Bank territories it took from the Palestinians. This insures that relations between the Islamic world and the US plummet. Even friendly Islamic governments will fight us on this one. It gave Islamic terrorism a major boost and gains the US nothing. I could go on . . . Yes, we are fighting it the old way. You can't defeat cellular terrorist groups by traditional war-fighting and taking down countries. Especially countries that didn't attack us. Terrorism will have to be fought by covert action overseas, both by the CIA and by military special forces taking these groups on cell by cell. Iraq is a distraction and our military is ill-used. You've never heard me promote Kerry here, I don't even know what his "sound bytes" are. I'm not promoting Kerry, I don't know what a Kerry presidency will bring us. I'm voting against Bush because I've seen what he has brought us and we can't afford any more of his political and military blunders.
Those are political observations. You have yet to prove actual blunders or cause and effects in regards to fighting terrorism like your post indicated. So please continue to go on. The military officer in charge has just requested 3000 to 5000 additional troops to get on top of things not 150,000. You complain about troops numbers but would complain if they raise the number that troops are being taken away from other places. You would also complain if you started to see "civilian" deaths when we attack the rebels. You put your self in a situation where it does not matter what Bush does you will always believe it is wrong, and before you start that I am the same but in the opposite beliefs you have already read what I think should happen to Fallajah. I am disappointed that it is still there. I just know Kerry is playing politics with our security more than anybody I have ever seen and would be far worse for this country. What have we not been doing in Afghanistan? You say a lot of stuff, but offer nothing to back up your opinion. How many troops should we have their in your opinion? In Israel you support appeasing terrorists, which is the old way of doing things. It has not worked in the past and will not work now. So taking down the Taliban which controlled 75% to 80% of Afghanistan did not effect terrorism. Taking down Iraq did not play into Libya admitting a program that no one knew they had. Turning Pakistan (govt) to help us instead of supporting the Taliban. Having FBI and CIA agents involved in some of the major arrests that have taken place in Pakistan does not count. The relationship between India and Pakistan is stable for now, which helps us in the fight against terrorism in that area. CIA and special forces are being used in other places besides Iraq. You pick forces and say they are not being used which you know due to what they are and what they do can never really proven one way or the other how much they are being used. You continue to offer sound bites even if you really do not know what they are. As far Kerry why don't you take a look at his speech in 2002. Does it sound much different than Bush except for the fact that he is now playing politics with our National Security in an attempt to get elected, which you seem to support as well. My Argument for the War (before I changed my mind) You and others continue to talk about our allies and how we damaged relationships but forget that France, Russia, and possible members of the UN were making some serious $ under the table with saddam. Most of these same people stood to make even more money after they got the sanctions lifted. They were not making a stand on principle. They were and are as corrupt as you and others claim Bush is. UN Oil Corruption Another oil link Here is another democrat that seemed to think action in Iraq was needed when he was in power. link So which democrat will you be voting for the ones who supported action when it was cleaner or more politically correct, or the ones who now play politics. The problem is they are one in the same.
Hey, these are my views and I'm entitled to them. Just because you don't agree doesn't make them invalid. No "proof" I could offer is going to change your mind. I don't even want to change your mind. I'm just stating what I believe. As do you. Don't put words in my mouth or attempt to guess what I would "complain" about. How do you know what I'm thinking? Stick to what I've said, not what you imagine I might say. I've never complained about civilian collateral casualties. That's going to happen in a war. I objected when you childishly advocated the atomic bombing of Fallujah. I still want to see you justify that. These are political observations, to quote yourself. Where is the proof that you demand of me? We haven't finished the job of rooting out the Taliban or Al Quaida. We haven't caught or killed bin Ladin. We haven't rebuilt the country like we promised to do--the money is going into the Iraq war. Again you put words in my mouth. Where have I advocated appeasing terrorists? What I said was Bush blundered by allowing the Israelis to keep the West Bank. You apparently think that the entire Islamic world are terrorists. You are wrong. I offer my opinion. That's all you are doing, too. Bush is probably going to cost Tony Blair his job, too. I've never considered France and Russia to be allies, but Britain is and for the first time in recent history we have lost popular support in Britain. Again, I've never accused Bush of being corrupt (as in crooked), but I think he lied to get us into the war. So do a lot of people.
I don't understand how anyone could say Bush lied about Iraq. I think some people around here would believe Saddam instead of thier own government. That is whats up with the left witch hunt and constant attacks against this administration. Even Janet Reno discredited Richard Clark last week when she agreed with Dr. Rice about we were just lucky to stop the millinium plot in Seattle. All the left can do is get Woodward and Clark to attack the Bush administration because thier candidate John Kerry can't do it himself. John Kerry has NO personality or anything else that the left can be excited about, he can criticize Bush on occasion but he has yet to come up with any answers. I have yet to hear any campaign from the left in why we should vote for Kerry and his positives, anyone else? I would argue with anyone here that Iraq isn't interferring with the war on terror. Some people say we need more troops in Afghanistan looking for a few individuals. I strongly disagree because the war on terror is more than hunting down a few individuals. I would argue with anyone out there that it would be a waste of troops to have any more in Afghanistan because IMO they aren't where we are looking, they are in Iran. You heard it here first!!! Wouldn't you agree more troops in Afghanistan would be a waste and your point worthless then, if you found this out? "Iraq is a venus fly trap attracting terrorists, the terrorists are the flies that are being captured and killed in that country everyday" Sourdoughman
Red, Getting little touchy I see. I offer more than my opinion and always back up my posts just like I did with Razing Falluja. You may not agree, but it appears you were in the minority. The day you actually attempt to back up anything you say I may have a heart attack. The fact that you think Bush lied and that Bush is going cost Blair his job shows your mentality. If you feel Bush lied than you must think Blair, Kerry, Clinton and so on lied as well. You are putting the words in your own mouth, but you seem to not understand their implications.
We must agree to disagree on this one, Dallas. I just don't feel a need to "back up" my opinions with someone else's opinion. My opinions are my own. You won't see me linking to some columnists site whose opinion parallels mine. If you think I have a fact wrong, then ask me, be specific and I'll either cite a source, admit a mistake, profess ignorance, or suggest you do a Googlesearch. Sorry if I sounded testy yesterday, I had a couple of beers and I was on a roll.
No problem. Talking about war and politics can get heated at times. I do not mean anything personal against you and apologize if it has been taken that way. I just like links or something when things get written here as "facts" about Bush or Iraq. It not only serves to back up the facts but provides us chances to read the entire article or news site. Somethings are obvious and indisputable, but when discussing politics in an election year having some links helps distinguish between facts, someone's opinion on the situation that may or may not be based on factual information, and out right fiction. Links can obviously be biased as well, but they also help to be able to tell where a person is coming from. I have also picked up numerous sites from posts here that I will check the headlines or front page on a regular basis that I have never heard of before seeing them here.
