I am curious to hear your thoughts on the differences/similarities between the Iraq war and WWI & WWII.  As I mentioned in another thread, I am reading a book by Larry King, in which he makes many comparisons between the current conflict and the ones he grew up in.  Of course, the public reaction is completely different, as is the media.  It seems (I am not attempting to make a political argument here, I am commenting the recollections of Larry King as per his book) that many of the citizens of New York during the time of the World Wars were immigrants from communist or other "non-democracy" nations.  They were so grateful to be here in the "land of the free" that they wouldn't even think of criticizing or going against our government, because they really appreciated what it meant to be an American.

Looking at some of the events, I see some key similarities between Hitler and Hussein.  Hitler's treatment of Jews is very similar to Hussein's treatment of Kurds.

Hitler's invasion of Britain is very similar to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

Pearl Harbor is somewhat similar to 9/11. (Although perpetrated by Japan/Al Qaeda instead of Hitler/Hussein)

Do you think we were justified in entering WWII?  What do you think would have happened in the world if we hadn't?  Do you agree with King's reasoning that the wars were similar in many ways, but the American people knew first hand what the other side was all about, therefore were much more appreciative of America and therefore totally supportive?  (King, by the way, refers to himself as a democrat, and he was the son of Russian immigrants.  His father was forced to fight with the Russian army to bring communism to Russia while he was just a teenager.)

WWI & WWII - Similar to Iraq?

Nope.

Pearl Harbor is somewhat similar to 9/11. (Although perpetrated by Japan/Al Qaeda instead of Hitler/Hussein)

But Hussein had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9/11 - that would be like, after Pearl Harbour, the US deciding to invade the Philippines

Come to think of it, pretty much all those comparisons are spurious.

WWI & WWII - Similar to Iraq?

Nope.


Only because you weren't alive during those wars.  Something tells me most the left in America, Canada, and Europe would oppose World War II if it were to happen today.

The left wants to pretend like there are some wars which they would support, so they say yes to the revolutionary war, yes world war I, and yes to world war II; all of which they weren't alive to protest or support.  But most on the left, except when Clinton was president and was bombing Christian serbs, have opposed every modern day war.  The world wars are red herrings, the left opposes any war regardless of wheather it's needed or not.

"Why are we attacking Germany?  It was Japan that attacked us!"

But Hussein had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9/11

Except being the only world leader who praised it.

But Hussein had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9/11 - that would be like, after Pearl Harbour, the US deciding to invade the Philippines

Come to think of it, pretty much all those comparisons are spurious.


That is why I specified that Japan, not Germany was responsible for Pearl Harbor, just like Al Qaeda, not Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Firstly Hitler didn't invade Britain, just about every other European country but not Britain ! The only invasion we had was from the American G.I's !
I think one big difference between these wars is exactly that.At the point of the Iraq war only Iraq had been repressed and Kuwait invaded as far as I understand it.By the time Pearl Harbour happened a large chunk of the world was invaded or under threat.

I just think that Larry King (a self-proclaimed democrat) makes a good point when he refers to the fact that what we know of life under Taliban or Hussein style governments is only what the media chooses to show us.  The average American citizen has no first hand knowledge.  Back in the days of WWI & WWII, the US (particularly New York, because of Ellis Island) was flooded with immigrants coming from non-democratic countries in search of freedom.  And it wasn't so easy back then to hop on the next flight to LAX.  Most came by ship, and from what I understand, these ships were no luxury cruise liners.  Many were rat-infested, cold and dark.  People went through alot to get here back then, and I wonder if their personal appreciation of the American Dream is a big part of the reason for the differences in public opinion.

Only because you weren't alive during those wars.  Something tells me most the left in America, Canada, and Europe would oppose World War II if it were to happen today.

The left wants to pretend like there are some wars which they would support, so they say yes to the revolutionary war, yes world war I, and yes to world war II; all of which they weren't alive to protest or support.  But most on the left, except when Clinton was president and was bombing Christian serbs, have opposed every modern day war.  The world wars are red herrings, the left opposes any war regardless of wheather it's needed or not.

"Why are we attacking Germany?  It was Japan that attacked us!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, something tells you...that something is always Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, G. Gordon Liddy, George Will or some other apologist for the oil barons.
Yawn!
::)

The only invasion we had was from the American G.I's !


What?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, something tells you...

You know it's true.  We couldn't win world war II today.  If it was Hitler's Germanys with modern day weapons, we'd lose.  The left in America, in Britain, and maybe even in Russia simply wouldn't allow the government or the military to do what it needs to do to win.  We see it today with Iraq.

We used to throw firebombs into underground tunnels and shoot every Jap in the back as he came running out.  Could we do that today?  No.  Could we bomb Germany and Italy into the ground today?  No.  Could we drop the bomb today like in 1945, which saved us from invading Japan, something that would have took an estimated million troops?  Hell no.

You know it's true.  We couldn't win world war II today.  If it was Hitler's Germanys with modern day weapons, we'd lose.  The left in America, in Britain, and maybe even in Russia simply wouldn't allow the government or the military to do what it needs to do to win.  We see it today with Iraq.

We used to throw firebombs into underground tunnels and shoot every Jap in the back as he came running out.  Could we do that today?  No.  Could we bomb Germand and Italy into the ground today?  No.  Could we drop the bomb today like in 1945, which saved us from invading Japan, something that would have took an estimated million troops?  Hell no.

If there was an aggressive force as powerful as the Axis powers bombing the stuffing out of Europe and about to invade the American west, there might be more willingness on the part of the Left to let the armed forces beat holy h*ll out of this hypothetical Axis. 
The real threat to winning WWII today is the deindustrialization of America.  America made everything her citizens bought in 1940.  Today, we manufacture practically nothing.  America was rich in 1940.  Today America is the biggest debtor nation with a class of capitalist barons getting rich off of beggaring the rest of the American people.  The robber barons of yore, as nasty as they were, got rich by building and making things, and employing Americans.  Today it's just the opposite.
In the 1940s, Americans put up with government imposed rations, planted "victory gardens," and saved everything from scrap iron to bacon fat.  As much as the Republicans of today love to buy Toby Keith records and hang a flag outside their SUVs, they don't know sacrifice.  They believe they are entitled to a 28% top marginal tax rate and they scream like stuck pigs if they get downgraded from business to coach.  Ronald Reagan said selfishness was the highest virtue and that was the only part of his program that actually "trickled down."  It's not just the rich who are selfish and entitled, we all are.  America does not have the psychology to win a war like WWII today.
You're discussing a silly hypothetical here.  We did not have atomic weapons until the end of WWII.  Nuclear arsenals, international treaties, and the collapse of communism makes today's world theater incomprable to that of WWII.

We used to throw firebombs into underground tunnels and shoot every Jap in the back as he came running out.  Could we do that today?  No.  Could we bomb Germand and Italy into the ground today?  No.  Could we drop the bomb today like in 1945, which saved us from invading Japan, something that would have took an estimated million troops?  Hell no.

I'm not sure what you think would stop the US?
International law, the UN and the Geneva convention seem to have no effect.

Sure, the left might complain and protest but they didn't manage to stop the invasion of Iraq.  They didn't manage to prevent the warcrimes being perpertrated at Guantanamo bay/Abu Gharaib.

Why do you think they would prevent anything at all?

What?
It was a 'friendly' invasion, but it was an invasion never the less.Hundreds of thousands of American G.I's flooded into the U.K once America joined the second world war.

I see similarities between Iraq and WWII. You have two fascists rulers who want to dominate the world so they start invading other countries. Hitler started by invading Poland and Bush started by invading Iraq.





Cat

The INVADING Iraq was to get rid of the ENEMY WHO WANTS TO KILL ALL AMERICANS...SCREW YOUR CAP ON STRAIGHT...we were backed up by a number of others who agreed whatever Sadman was doing was in violation of agreements previously made.
Don't you ever see the footage of AlKaida vowing to kill America?

If we get oil from the place..that's part of the business in return for our so called invading!

Remember 911...ALk came HERE! We're here now to gut them out!

Except being the only world leader who praised it.

Well hell, that's reason enough to send 1,700 American service men to their graves.  I guess if North Korea, with its nuclear capability, says something we don't like, we will go to war with them?

Nah, the world knows Bush does not invade countries with nuclear weapons.

I see similarities between Iraq and WWII. You have two fascists rulers who want to dominate the world so they start invading other countries. Hitler started by invading Poland and Bush started by invading Iraq

Good call, Cat.

The INVADING Iraq was to get rid of the ENEMY WHO WANTS TO KILL ALL AMERICANS...SCREW YOUR CAP ON STRAIGHT...we were backed up by a number of others who agreed whatever Sadman was doing was in violation of agreements previously made.
Don't you ever see the footage of AlKaida vowing to kill America?

If we get oil from the place..that's part of the business in return for our so called invading!

Remember 911...ALk came HERE! We're here now to gut them out!


Oh PLEASE!!! Al Quada was NEVER in Iraq until AFTER the invasion! Saddam was in violation of U.N. treaties so it was up to the U.N. to see him brought to justice-NOT the U.S. It was an illegal invasion-pure and simple! So, like I said, Bush is pulling a Hitler by invading a soverign country. But, unlike Hitler, Bush doesn't have a plan now that we are there.




Cat

The UN would NOT even enforce themselves how do you expect them to handle SADMAN....
it was stated what was to take place. if it was ILLEGAL INVASION, why isn't the UN holding US accountable for breaking the rules?

The UN would NOT even enforce themselves how do you expect them to handle SADMAN....
it was stated what was to take place. if it was ILLEGAL INVASION, why isn't the UN holding US accountable for breaking the rules?




That is a very good question. Why isn't Bush being held accountable for ANYTHING he does?




Cat

Only because you weren't alive during those wars.  Something tells me most the left in America, Canada, and Europe would oppose World War II if it were to happen today.

The left wants to pretend like there are some wars which they would support, so they say yes to the revolutionary war, yes world war I, and yes to world war II; all of which they weren't alive to protest or support.  But most on the left, except when Clinton was president and was bombing Christian serbs, have opposed every modern day war.  The world wars are red herrings, the left opposes any war regardless of wheather it's needed or not.

"Why are we attacking Germany?  It was Japan that attacked us!"


Balderdash!

The left supported WWII in droves, and, as I said elsewhere fought fascism in Spain while American corporations supported Franco.  WWI is a different story.  It was an Imperialistic war fought initially by the Imperial powers of Europe, which we entered to save J.P.Morgans hindparts.

We declared war on Japan in 1941.  Germany declared war on us.  Read some history for Christ sake

Firstly Hitler didn't invade Britain, just about every other European country but not Britain ! The only invasion we had was from the American G.I's !
I think one big difference between these wars is exactly that.At the point of the Iraq war only Iraq had been repressed and Kuwait invaded as far as I understand it.By the time Pearl Harbour happened a large chunk of the world was invaded or under threat.



My dad was one of those "invaders", and reports that the Tommies used to say they were over paid, over sexed, and over here.

Kiwait had already been "liberated when Lil' Georgie (as opposed to Big Georgie) invaded.

You know it's true.  We couldn't win world war II today.  If it was Hitler's Germanys with modern day weapons, we'd lose.  The left in America, in Britain, and maybe even in Russia simply wouldn't allow the government or the military to do what it needs to do to win.  We see it today with Iraq.

We used to throw firebombs into underground tunnels and shoot every Jap in the back as he came running out.  Could we do that today?  No.  Could we bomb Germand and Italy into the ground today?  No.  Could we drop the bomb today like in 1945, which saved us from invading Japan, something that would have took an estimated million troops?  Hell no.


Balderdash!  Its not a question of HOW one fights a war (which Lil' Georgie, Rummy & company seem not to be able to do, but SHOULD you fight a war.  Its not the tactics, or the strategy that people object to, its the politics.  There was no need for us to invade Iraq.  There was a need to defeat both Japan and Germany.  And by the way, Japan was moving toward surrender - just leave the Emporer alone - BEFORE we dropped the bomb, twice.  Again, read some history.

The INVADING Iraq was to get rid of the ENEMY WHO WANTS TO KILL ALL AMERICANS...SCREW YOUR CAP ON STRAIGHT...we were backed up by a number of others who agreed whatever Sadman was doing was in violation of agreements previously made.
Don't you ever see the footage of AlKaida vowing to kill America?

If we get oil from the place..that's part of the business in return for our so called invading!

Remember 911...ALk came HERE! We're here now to gut them out!


To continue the WWII analogy, "Good Lord, Japan just bombed Pearl Harbor, lets declare war on... Mexico".  Yes, Al Quida came here, not the Iraqi Republican Guard.  I don't like war, but I did support deposing the Taliban and going after Bin Laden.  So "screw your hat on straight" get your facts straight, stop parroting your  conservative "pundants" and think for yourself.

The UN would NOT even enforce themselves how do you expect them to handle SADMAN....
it was stated what was to take place. if it was ILLEGAL INVASION, why isn't the UN holding US accountable for breaking the rules?



Nor does the UN inforce its resolutions cobdemning Jewish settlements on Palistinian territory.  Solve that problem and you would go a long way to achieving peace in the middle east (West Asia).

Nor does the UN inforce its resolutions cobdemning Jewish settlements on Palistinian territory.  Solve that problem and you would go a long way to achieving peace in the middle east (West Asia).

At least, if the US solved THAT problem, or at least stopped it's unwavering support for terrorism (against muslims), then it might have some credibility in claiming to be fighting terrorism.
It's not hard to see why muslims might feel they were being victimized by a fundamentalist christian country.

At least, if the US solved THAT problem, or at least stopped it's unwavering support for terrorism (against muslims), then it might have some credibility in claiming to be fighting terrorism.
It's not hard to see why muslims might feel they were being victimized by a fundamentalist christian country.



Well put!

Nor does the UN inforce its resolutions cobdemning Jewish settlements on Palistinian territory.  Solve that problem and you would go a long way to achieving peace in the middle east (West Asia).


Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Israel in the process of pulling out of the gaza strip and stopping attacks against Palestinians in BIG part at the urging of President Bush?  Didn't it get to the point that the Israeli government was receiving threats from Israelis because they didn't want to pull out of Palestine?  It sounds to me like things are making headway in the Palestine/Israel conflict, for the first time in a long time.

I see similarities between Iraq and WWII. You have two fascists rulers who want to dominate the world so they start invading other countries. Hitler started by invading Poland and Bush started by invading Iraq.





Cat


Cat, I can understand why you mentioned Hitler and Bush, given your political stance.  BUT you forgot one.  Saddam invading Kuwait, and gassing Kurds.

This is where alot of the misunderstanding between liberals and conservatives come from.  I know that you were not trying to imply that what Saddam did was ok... but it can be taken that way since you failed to mention Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his ethnic cleansing of Kurds.  (which to many on the right would sound like you're saying that only Bush and Hitler did anything wrong, and Saddam didn't.)

Likewise, liberals tend to be under the impression that Republicans LIKE being at war.  We actually hate it as much as you do and we really want the troops to come home.  We are not the war-mongers that you make us out to be, it's just a difference of opinion on who we blame for the fact that we are at war, and who we feel is in a position to stop it.  I think if the insurgents stopped attacking the Iraqi government, that would be a HUGE step toward bringing our troops home.  Once Iraqis regain control of the country, I am very confident that the US will begin withdrawing.

I'm not sure what you think would stop the US?


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Iraq war was legal under US law and the US constitution.  The house of representatives and the senate voted and gave president Bush the authority to go to war, so repeating lies that it was illegal won't work on me or the vast majority of Americans.

The house of representatives and the senate voted and gave president Bush the authority to go to war,

GW, don't forget John Kerry, he voted for it too.

GW, don't forget John Kerry, he voted for it too.


Before he voted against it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Iraq war was legal under US law and the US constitution.  The house of representatives and the senate voted and gave president Bush the authority to go to war, so repeating lies that it was illegal won't work on me or the vast majority of Americans.

US jurisdiction ends at the borders of the US.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law, it was certainly illegal under Iraqi law.

Lets just follow your reasoning, The 911 attacks were ,therefore, legal as al-quieda passsed a law (internally) making it OK?
If I come to American and murder Christians, that's legal because some fundamentalist country elsewhere made it legal?

I am well aware of the political spin of the US regime.  This has no effect on me or the majority of civilised beings on this planet. The fact that the US made a law allowing this terrorism just goes to show what kind of people you really are!

Cat, I can understand why you mentioned Hitler and Bush, given your political stance.  BUT you forgot one.  Saddam invading Kuwait, and gassing Kurds.

This is where alot of the misunderstanding between liberals and conservatives come from.  I know that you were not trying to imply that what Saddam did was ok... but it can be taken that way since you failed to mention Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his ethnic cleansing of Kurds.  (which to many on the right would sound like you're saying that only Bush and Hitler did anything wrong, and Saddam didn't.)

Likewise, liberals tend to be under the impression that Republicans LIKE being at war.  We actually hate it as much as you do and we really want the troops to come home.  We are not the war-mongers that you make us out to be, it's just a difference of opinion on who we blame for the fact that we are at war, and who we feel is in a position to stop it.  I think if the insurgents stopped attacking the Iraqi government, that would be a HUGE step toward bringing our troops home.  Once Iraqis regain control of the country, I am very confident that the US will begin withdrawing.

If?  As the folks back home say, "If I had some ham, I'd have some ham and eggs, if I had some eggs"!  Or, as I often analogise, the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlamp of an oncoming train."
Are the daily car bombings a harbinger of the civil war to come when the occupying forces are no longer keeping the lid on the boiling pot?  Or is Iraq a budding young democracy with much to boast about while the liberal media--the nattering nabobs of negativism--focuses on a few bad apples setting off cherry bombs!
:D
Yes inded the Republicans hate being at war.  Bush and his cabinet hate war so much, they didn't even go to war themselves when their country called them as young men!
::)

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Israel in the process of pulling out of the gaza strip and stopping attacks against Palestinians in BIG part at the urging of President Bush?   Didn't it get to the point that the Israeli government was receiving threats from Israelis because they didn't want to pull out of Palestine?  It sounds to me like things are making headway in the Palestine/Israel conflict, for the first time in a long time.

Well, israel's like a guy who shoved a knive twelve inches into another guy's back, and Bush is like a cop who comes along and asks the first guy to pull the knife out---six inches!

US jurisdiction ends at the borders of the US.


The United States voted for war, we can go to war.  No other country had to take part as well, but Britain (which is probably our only true friend in Europe along with Poland and Italy) decided to come along on their own will.

Lets just follow your reasoning, The 911 attacks were ,therefore, legal as al-quieda passsed a law (internally) making it OK?

Al-Qaeda is not a country.

US jurisdiction ends at the borders of the US.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law, it was certainly illegal under Iraqi law.



haha.. so Iraq has a law against invading Iraq.. why don't they have a law against invading Kuwait?

I guess we should have asked Japan and Germany's permission to attack them.  They should have done a thorough check of all of their laws to see if our attacking them was legal.  Oh, and I suppose the Taliban probably had a law against attacking al-qaeda too.  Oops.

HEY!  Maybe we should make a law against suicide bombing American soldiers.  The insurgents would have to obey it, right? 

why don't they have a law against invading Kuwait?
HEY!  Maybe we should make a law against suicide bombing American soldiers.  The insurgents would have to obey it, right? 


If you even took the time to try and understand what Taoist meant, I doubt you would have written something so unbelievably absurd.

By GWBush's own statement, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was completely legal. After all, the Iraqi government decided it was ok. Just like your own government decided it was ok to invade Iraq.

As for the insurgents. Your government was warned way before the invasion that this would happen. And what was their response, "Oh no, the Iraqi people will be handing us roses and treating us like liberators".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Iraq war was legal under US law and the US constitution.

Actually all Bush got was an authorization to use force from the Congress.  This is the same thing Lyndon Johnson used when he docotored the information of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which lead to the Vietnam war, 58,000 dead Americans, and over one million dead Vietnamese.  Each of these measures allows the president full authority to do as he sees fit militarily, without actually decalaring war.

To actually declalre war, Bush would have had to ask for an authorization from Congress (ala FDR after Pearl Harbor), since even Bush knew his reasons for going to war were bogus, he knew he never would have gotten such authority.

Also Karl Rove (Bush's brain) knew a decalration of war, as required by the constitution, would have called for sacrafices on behalf of the American people.  This would have meant restoring the draft, rationing, etc.  Of course, this would have killed support for The Chimp's war of vanity among the American people.

No we did not decalare war on Iraq as required by the constitution.  What we have in Iraq is a police situtation, similar to Vietnam.

Bush, Cheney and Rummy are going to go down in history as this generation's LBJ, McNamara and Rostow.

Cat, I can understand why you mentioned Hitler and Bush, given your political stance.  BUT you forgot one.  Saddam invading Kuwait, and gassing Kurds.

This is where alot of the misunderstanding between liberals and conservatives come from.  I know that you were not trying to imply that what Saddam did was ok... but it can be taken that way since you failed to mention Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his ethnic cleansing of Kurds.  (which to many on the right would sound like you're saying that only Bush and Hitler did anything wrong, and Saddam didn't.)

Likewise, liberals tend to be under the impression that Republicans LIKE being at war.  We actually hate it as much as you do and we really want the troops to come home.  We are not the war-mongers that you make us out to be, it's just a difference of opinion on who we blame for the fact that we are at war, and who we feel is in a position to stop it.  I think if the insurgents stopped attacking the Iraqi government, that would be a HUGE step toward bringing our troops home.  Once Iraqis regain control of the country, I am very confident that the US will begin withdrawing.



Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and what happened? Troops from many nations felt that Saddam needed to be stopped and he was. He was sent back to Iraq. And "Daddy" Bush knew it would have been a mistake to go into Iraq.

As for killing the Kurds, yes he did that and I do NOT condone it at all. But, are we (the U.S.) the world's police force? If that is case, how come we did nothing in Chile when Pinocet was killing his own people? Or how about in Rwanda? Or how about in Bosnia? The answer: OIL!!!  How many more people have to die before some people start realizing how big of a mistake this was and to hold the people who created the lies for its justifaction accountable?




Cat

Right, we're war mongers...then if the latest news is accurate that someone has a VERY GOOD idea where BINLADEN is, did you notice the GOVmt. said he is involved with a country that seems to have a tolerance for harboring terrorists..it may start with a P and end with AKISTAN or S and end with AUDI ARABIA...BUT WE ARE NOT RUSHING IN TO BOMB THEM OUT OF THEIR HOLES ...Sounds like they do respect things than people /news make it out to sound.

Any US assasinating of leaders is prohibited yet from the previous ones that WERE, if we were at WAR with their country ALL BETS ARE OFF!

And what's with people and their CHE tributes(photos on shirts and banners)of him..heard that LA Mexicans with strong feeling who knew the situation swear if anyone comes near them with any item with him THEY WOULD RIP IT OFF THEIR BACK!
Another AWEFUL GUY!   

Right, we're war mongers...then if the latest news is accurate that someone has a VERY GOOD idea where BINLADEN is, did you notice the GOVmt. said he is involved with a country that seems to have a tolerance for harboring terrorists..it may start with a P and end with AKISTAN or S and end with AUDI ARABIA...BUT WE ARE NOT RUSHING IN TO BOMB THEM OUT OF THEIR HOLES ...Sounds like they do respect things than people /news make it out to sound.

Any US assasinating of leaders is prohibited yet from the previous ones that WERE, if we were at WAR with their country ALL BETS ARE OFF!

And what's with people and their CHE tributes(photos on shirts and banners)of him..heard that LA Mexicans with strong feeling who knew the situation swear if anyone comes near them with any item with him THEY WOULD RIP IT OFF THEIR BACK!
Another AWEFUL GUY!   


Yes, we are, and have been war mongers for some time - how do you think we go think we got the southwest?  And what about Custer and Sand Creek?  We love to kill our "enemies", especially if they are much weaker than we are.  I answered the rest of this totally ahistorical and totally uninformed rant on another thread, an will not repeat myself, but it is clear that some people need to get a handle on  reality and READ SOME HISTORY before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Alot of seemingly and admitted illeagal acts have taken place throughout history, we hope not to repeat them... How many mistresses former early presidents had? Why did no one make a big deal of it as now?

Did you know Lincoln really wasn't into freeing slaves as many credit him..there's new evidence on that, so as things are exposed, we find out, hold it up to the mirror and hopefully change. But if the US is in some kind of practice of overthrowing all weak countries and killing their leaders we must be very feared of or stupid to continue it?? 

If you even took the time to try and understand what Taoist meant, I doubt you would have written something so unbelievably absurd.

By GWBush's own statement, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was completely legal. After all, the Iraqi government decided it was ok. Just like your own government decided it was ok to invade Iraq.

As for the insurgents. Your government was warned way before the invasion that this would happen. And what was their response, "Oh no, the Iraqi people will be handing us roses and treating us like liberators".










my statement was meant to sound absurd.  but still not as absurd as saying what we did was illegal under iraq law.

Maybe I'm just too young.  I've really racked my brain trying to understand the way liberals think on National Security, and I just don't get it.  Sure, I'm Republican... but I don't buy into their whole political agenda.  I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I am pro-choice.

My first real political memory that I was old enough to understand was the Iran hostage crisis.  I remember that as soon as Reagan was elected, the hostages were immediately released, despite Carter's so-called efforts.  That gave the Republicans a big thumbs up in my (9 year old) mind.

I can remember there was concern about the USSR/Soviet Union/Russia and they had invaded Afghanistan.  I remember tensions were high between us and them until the first George Bush put out the fire and established a civil relationship with Boris Yeltsin.

Next came Clinton.  I remember the USS Cole was attacked.  We did nothing.  The US Embassy was attacked.  We did nothing.  The first World Trade Center bombing.  Again, no response.  After seeing the first Bush's response to Desert Storm, I was like "What's wrong with this Clinton guy?  Why isn't he doing anything about this?"

Then came Bush #2.  And 9/11.  We responded.  US hasn't been attacked outside of the "war zone" since.

Can you blame me, based on my experience, for feeling the way I do?

Maybe I'm just too young.  I've really racked my brain trying to understand the way liberals think on National Security, and I just don't get it.   Sure, I'm Republican... but I don't buy into their whole political agenda.  I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I am pro-choice.

My first real political memory that I was old enough to understand was the Iran hostage crisis.  I remember that as soon as Reagan was elected, the hostages were immediately released, despite Carter's so-called efforts.  That gave the Republicans a big thumbs up in my (9 year old) mind.

I can remember there was concern about the USSR/Soviet Union/Russia and they had invaded Afghanistan.   I remember tensions were high between us and them until the first George Bush put out the fire and established a civil relationship with Boris Yeltsin.

Next came Clinton.  I remember the USS Cole was attacked.  We did nothing.  The US Embassy was attacked.  We did nothing.  The first World Trade Center bombing.  Again, no response.  After seeing the first Bush's response to Desert Storm, I was like "What's wrong with this Clinton guy?  Why isn't he doing anything about this?"

Then came Bush #2.  And 9/11.  We responded.  US hasn't been attacked outside of the "war zone" since.

Can you blame me, based on my experience, for feeling the way I do?


Yes. Your country invaded a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9-11. And with all of the books and internet resources available to you. You should be able to distinguish the difference between  Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

My first real political memory that I was old enough to understand was the Iran hostage crisis.  I remember that as soon as Reagan was elected, the hostages were immediately released, despite Carter's so-called efforts.  That gave the Republicans a big thumbs up in my (9 year old) mind.
The Reagan camp made a deal with the Iranian government to retain those hostages until after the election.  The Reaganistas feared losing the election the hostages were released prior to election day. They wanted to insure Carter got NO credit in the public mind.   In fact, the Reaganista's arranged for the hostages to be held all the way until Reagan's inauguration.  
Reagan and the same clowns later sold weapons to Iran illegally (as in after Congress forbade the administrarion to do so) and illegally funneled the money to the the right-wing terror squads, known as the Contras, to overthrow the popularly elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua.  Reagan was a traitor, a war criminal and should have been impeached, thrown out of office, and sentenced to federal prison for the rest of his life.

Troops from many nations felt that Saddam needed to be stopped.....

That sounds like what is going on now.

That sounds like what is going on now.



Um, I am afraid NOT! For one thing, after the Gulf War, he never left Iraq. As for the so-called Coalition...Not too much there. What were we stopping him for? For his oil. The Bush Administration could care less how many people (whether it be Kurds, Sunnis, or even Americans) are killed. They just want that oil and they don't care who become "colateral damage".





Cat

For his oil.

You've got to be one of the few people anywhere still repeating this lie.  Before anyone repeats "war for oil" again, maybe they should take a quick trip to the local gas station.

You've got to be one of the few people anywhere still repeating this lie.  Before anyone repeats "war for oil" again, maybe they should take a quick trip to the local gas station.



That is one of the few things about this war that is NOT a lie. And why are the gas prices so high? That is another bit that Bush and co. has manipulated. This Administration does NOT care about high prices at the pump because all their oil buddies are getting $$$$$$ because of it. The high prices are FALSE!!!  There is enough oil in the U.S. reserves to bring the prices down but the "Bushies" do not do that because that would cut into their profits.




Cat




Cat

Alot of seemingly and admitted illeagal acts have taken place throughout history, we hope not to repeat them... How many mistresses former early presidents had? Why did no one make a big deal of it as now?

Did you know Lincoln really wasn't into freeing slaves as many credit him..there's new evidence on that, so as things are exposed, we find out, hold it up to the mirror and hopefully change. But if the US is in some kind of practice of overthrowing all weak countries and killing their leaders we must be very feared of or stupid to continue it?? 


Who cares how many misteresses presidents have had?  Its of no consequence, thats why nobody made a big deal of it, even before the "sexual revolution" of the '60s, ie during more "puritan" times.

Lincoln was a very complex man, both moral, practical, and an astute politition.  What is clear is that he was opposed to slavery on moral grounds, wanted to limit its expansion as a political compromise, and was cautious of allianating the slaveholding boarder states which had remained loyal while the war was raging.

We only overthrow the gov'ts of weaker countries that we don't like, or try to, even if it violates international laws which we have pledged to uphold.  As to the rest, I can't sisern your meaning.

Not sure of the whole Lumumba story for now, however the info on our agreement not to assasinate political leaders came about through REAGAN..Castr I think was BEFORE AND MAYBE LUMUMBA.:

President Reagan
signed an executive order which prohibited the CIA or
other government agents from engaging in
assisinations.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html

Maybe I'm just too young.  I've really racked my brain trying to understand the way liberals think on National Security, and I just don't get it.  Sure, I'm Republican... but I don't buy into their whole political agenda.  I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I am pro-choice.

My first real political memory that I was old enough to understand was the Iran hostage crisis.  I remember that as soon as Reagan was elected, the hostages were immediately released, despite Carter's so-called efforts.  That gave the Republicans a big thumbs up in my (9 year old) mind.

I can remember there was concern about the USSR/Soviet Union/Russia and they had invaded Afghanistan.  I remember tensions were high between us and them until the first George Bush put out the fire and established a civil relationship with Boris Yeltsin.

Next came Clinton.  I remember the USS Cole was attacked.  We did nothing.  The US Embassy was attacked.  We did nothing.  The first World Trade Center bombing.  Again, no response.  After seeing the first Bush's response to Desert Storm, I was like "What's wrong with this Clinton guy?  Why isn't he doing anything about this?"

Then came Bush #2.  And 9/11.  We responded.  US hasn't been attacked outside of the "war zone" since.

Can you blame me, based on my experience, for feeling the way I do?


To answer your question first, yes, I can and do find fault with your reasoning because it is based on a very superficial understanding of the facts.

First, liberals (and radicals like me) are VERY concerned with national security.  We realize, however, that there is more to it than being able to bomb whoever we don't like into oblivian.  I will go on from my own point of view.  I do believe that, in the current  state of the world we must have a strong military able to defend our selves and help defend our allies - as with NATO.  But  that is just the beginning.  National security also involves maintaining good relations with our friends, forming better ones with those on the fence, and improving them with those we might think of as enemies.  On all these fronts I would rate Lil' Georgie as an abject failure, with the exception of Tony "the Lap Dog" Blair.  National Security also involves maintaining and expanding democracy and well being at home. I this regard, again Lil' Georgie's record is abismyl.  I would have resisted WWI because it was NOT fought for democracy, but for Wall Street profits.  I would have volunteered for WWII (as my father did) because even if it didn't result in an expansion of democracy, it was in defence of the democracy we had.  I said a resounding NO to Vietnam, to the Bay of Pigs, to the 1973 coup in Chile, to the Contra war in Nicaragua etc, because there was no reason to do those things.

The Iran hostage crisis:  I think it was in 1952 that the CIA orchastrated the overthrow of the democratic gov't of Iran and the instalation of the Shah' repressive and authoritarian gov't.  The Iranian people blamed us for that, staged a revolution, and took our embassy staff prisoners.  Jimmy Carter both negotiated with Iran AND sent the Marines to liberate the hostages.  The mission failed because the military wasn't up to the task.  His negotiations failed because Reagan, like Nixon before him, engaged in serupticious, off the books negotiations for their own political purposes.  The deal that ended the Vietnam war was negotiated by LBJ in 1968 and was killed by Henry Kissinger, at Nixon's request, so as to throw the election to Nixon.  So half the names on the wall are there due to an act of treason.  Reagan's people (including George H.W. Bush) did the same thing to Carter so as to avoid an "October Surprise".

Afganistan:  Tzarist Russia, and after it the USSR have always concidered Afganistan as a sphere of influence, and in the late '70s and early '80s tried to maintain a  pro-Soviet gov't there.  Viewing this conflict as an opportunity to drag the Soviets into a Vietnam style quagmire, we supported the forces that became both the Taliban and Al Quida with advice, intelligence, and weopons (those pesky stinger missles).  I would add that it was Reagan, to his credit, who established a more friendly relationship with Gorbachov.

G.H.W.B., I think, set up Saddam, for whatever reason - I have no idea.  You must understand that the boundries and "soverign nations" of both the Middle East and Africa are the legacy of pre-WWI  European domination.  "Iraq" never existed until it was created by the League of Nations.  It was a British protectorate, a territory of land containing diverse peoples with no modern national identity.  Saddam had been our friend during his 1980's war against Iran.  He got too big for his britches.  We told him we would understand his desire to "rectify" Iraq's boarders by taking Kiwait, which Iraq claimed as a provance.  My best guess is that Saddam got blind-sided by our response.

Clinton retaliated against attacks on US assets in kind, meassured responses, and pursued sophisticated, clandestin responses to the several attacks we suffered during his watch.  The first WTC bombers, for example, were captured and are now in jail.

9/11:  After is few minutes of dumbfound stupidity, while he kept reading Barney the Goat or whatever to Florida school kids, Lil' Georgie orchastrated the overthrow of the Taliban, which I supported.  Then, after failing in his own declared mission of getting Binm Laden, he USED the 9/11 tragedy to forward his (according to Paul O'Neal, his budget director at the time) preconcieved agenda of deposing Saddam, with 9/11 and WMD as "justification"  It is clear that Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11, not did he harbor,  nor support Al Quida.  In fact he hated Bin Laden and the feeling was mutual.  Nor did he have WMD.  So the proper analogy here, going back to the topic, would be if, on Dec. 9, 1941, Roosevelt would have said to Congress "Good Lord, Japan has just attacked Pearl Harbor, let declare war on - Mexico".

I write none of this to offend, and I appreciate that you don't buy the neocon agenda hook, line, and sinker.  I applaud that.  Just let me say that events like these are not simple and above board, black and white.  Please, before you but any "party line" (mine included!) read some history, study the subtlties, always, always, be vritical of what "opinion leaders" tell you.  If then we wind up disagreeing, so be it, and well met.

Not sure of the whole Lumumba story for now, however the info on our agreement not to assasinate political leaders came about through REAGAN..Castr I think was BEFORE AND MAYBE LUMUMBA.:

President Reagan
signed an executive order which prohibited the CIA or
other government agents from engaging in
assisinations.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html




Yes, following the finding of the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations with Respect to Intelligance" (the Church Committee) reports, which I have  read (have you?), Reagan signed an exec order banning the process.  He also signed both orders and "findings" to legitimate the killing of Nicaraguan peasants by the Contras, with illeagal and serupticious funds through what was called "The Enterprize", which got its money by selling missles to IRAN, part of the Axis of Evil Reagan himself denouinced in public.  Go figure.

You've got to be one of the few people anywhere still repeating this lie.  Before anyone repeats "war for oil" again, maybe they should take a quick trip to the local gas station.


"Lie"?  You use that word much to freely.  The fact is that Iraqi oil isn't flowing because the insurgents keep destroying the pipe lines, and as they do so, which is almost daily reported in even my local paper, the "scarcity" of oil also keeps getting pumped to justify the high prices at the pump and to fill our heating oil tanks.  Meanwhile, I read that the oil company profits are at an all-time high.  Oh, so are Halliburton's, and they don't pump an ounce of oil. 

So YOU have to be one of the few people who still believes that control of the middle east is NOT about oil, even though that control has nothing to do with what we pay for its products.

The price of oil has to at least be $48 to be even...now its reaching another high..at the meeting of the refiners convention (not sure the actual term) the head of the committee joked 'We can't lower the price or we'd be cutting off our own arm!' When the news got ahold of it, they exposed the rat!


Anybody got any better ideas how to handle Iraq..guess not

Saddam had more than enough reasons to be attacked...remember the Dem committee were in charge at the time the accusations were revealed
and who DID something?

Anybody got any better ideas how to handle Iraq..guess not

From where we are now, no.  But there were an awful lot of people predicting precisely the mess that has come to pass, and just because I and people like me can't suggest anything particularly constructive *now*, doesn't mean that it wasn't a damnfool idea to invade in the first place.

IF we had tighter security at the airports we sure wouldn't be looking for Osama as furiously as we are either....

Can't change the past...let's work on the future... any OTHER things we should listen to to avoid OTHER confrontations? Speak up now so we can get it to the ears of those who can do something about it!?

IF we had tighter security at the airports we sure wouldn't be looking for Osama as furiously as we are either....

Can't change the past...let's work on the future... any OTHER things we should listen to to avoid OTHER confrontations? Speak up now so we can get it to the ears of those who can do something about it!?


I don't think anyone who anyone with any power listens to is a member of this board. When I figure out how too avoid conflict I'll mention it, but we probably shouldn't be going to war against the wishes of the vast majority of the world's people (at least those people with any opinion about it)

Well, hairbrained as it may sound, one suggestion would be to come up with some sort of technology to detect explosives from a distance... this way insurgents could be stopped before getting close to Americans or Iraqis.  We would be able to identify a suicide bomber from an innocent civilian.  That way they could still be suicide bombers but nobody else would get hurt.  Hey... if they really believe they will get 17 virgins.. or whatever that stupid superstition was..

Anybody got any better ideas how to handle Iraq..guess not


Yes.  And here I go at the risk of sounding like one of those arm chair generals.

Take the USAF and the RAF and bomb the hell out of all the known terrorist safehouses.  I never will get why when our troops have a ten square mile area sealed off with nothing but known terrorists in there, we don't bomb them.  Instead some dumba** at the department of defense thinks it will work better if we send our troops door to door so these suicidal maniacs can use them for target practice.

Increase the use of the air force.  Increase troop levels.  And take a page of McArthur's book: home by Christmas.

Take the USAF and the RAF and bomb the hell out of all the known terrorist safehouses. I never will get why when are troops have a ten square mile area sealed off with nothing but known terrorists in there, we don't bomb them. Instead some dumba** at the DOD thinks it will work better if we send our troops door to door so these suicidal maniacs can use them for target practice.

And create ten times as many terrorists by killing civilian bystanders and showing the world how you don't care about Arab lives?

And create ten times as many terrorists by killing civilian bystanders and showing the world how you don't care about Arab lives?


I'm certain American and British forces have enough intelligence to keep civilian deaths at a minimum.  Besides the longer this goes on, the more time the enemy has to continue car bombing innocent people.

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman.jpg

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over." -Union General William Tecumseh Sherman.

Is it an unwinnable 'Republican war'?
http://www.wnd.com/images/BUCHANAN(COLOR)2.jpg
By: Patrick J. Buchanan
June 22, 2005

From President Bush's Axis of Evil speech in January 2002 to the invasion in March 2003, some of us argued vehemently and ceaselessly against going to war.

We saw no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. We saw no threat from a nation unable even to shoot down a single U.S. plane during 40,000 sorties in the previous decade. We warned that an occupation of Iraq would create our own Lebanon. And so it has.

But we lost the debate of 2003. The warnings of opponents were brushed aside, and, with the Senate Democratic leadership behind him, Bush took us to war. Two years have now elapsed, and our leaders cannot even agree on whether we are winning or losing the war.

Vice President Cheney dismisses the insurgency as in its "last throes." CIA Director Porter Goss says, "They're not quite in their last throes, but ... they're very close to it." Sen. Joe Biden says Goss should talk to "his intelligence people on the ground." Biden told CBS: "They didn't suggest at all that it was near its last throes. Matter of fact, it's getting worse, not better."

John McCain says we face "a long hard slog ... It's going to be at least a couple of more years." Sen. Chuck Hagel, a McCain backer in 2000, says: "Things aren't getting better. They're getting worse ... The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

From these conflicting assessments, reports from Iraq and polls showing three in five Americans consider the war a mistake and want to begin bringing the troops home, some somber conclusions can be reached.

We may not be losing the war, but U.S. policy is failing either to end the insurgency or to eradicate the insurgents. Yet, Bush appears unable or unwilling to escalate to win it, if that means adding troops to the 140,000 already there. But if escalation is not an option, and the present policy is not working, and U.S. support is weakening, we are in a hellish situation.

For whether one opposed or supported the war, the president took us in. And, by now, the U.S. investment in blood, treasure, credibility and prestige is immense. As of today, there exists the possibility that that huge investment could be wiped out and America could suffer a reversal as grave as the loss of China to Stalin and Mao in 1949, or of Southeast Asia to communism in 1975.

Is the president, is the country aware of the stakes involved and of the consequences of a failure in Iraq?

If, following a U.S. withdrawal, the Baghdad government collapsed in the face of the insurgency, Iraq could split apart into a Kurdish north, a Shiite south and a radicalized Sunni center. Civil war could follow, with 2 million barrels a day of oil production taken off the world market in a matter of weeks.

A U.S. strategic defeat in Iraq would have a traumatic effect on every ally in the Islamic world and would energize and embolden radicals and terrorists from Morocco to Mindanao to attack the remaining friends of this country and American interests across the Third World.

At home, loss of Iraq would make Bush a failed president and ignite a quarrel as contentious and ugly as the "Who-Lost-China?" argument of the Truman-McCarthy era and the Vietnam debates of the Johnson and Nixon years, both of which poisoned our national politics for decades.

Because he knows a failure in Iraq would be a disaster for U.S. Middle East policy and a fatal blow to his place in history, Bush is not going to lose this war. Which means that, even in the absence of visible progress in eradicating the insurgency, he will not withdraw U.S. troops, even should his party suffer serious reversals in 2006, with the war's unpopularity the central issue.

Back in 1976, vice presidential nominee Bob Dole referred to World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam as "Democrat wars." Well, Iraq is "The Republicans' War." And as Democrats hold neither Congress nor the White House, they can support the war and the troops, while questioning the policy and the leadership. It is the Nixon option of 1968.

But if fading support for the war and a shortage of available forces means Bush cannot escalate to win it, but cannot risk disaster by walking away from it, he is left with a "stay-the-course" strategy. That was the Johnson option of 1968.

But if President Bush can neither escalate, nor cut his losses and get out, and his present policy is not working, what do we do?

Bush needs to tell us where we are going, how long it will take, how much it will cost, what the prospects are of success, what the risks and costs of failure are, and what victory will look like.

America needs answers now. Assurances will not longer do.

Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44926

Maybe I missed something.  Has it been completely ruled out that while the UN was trying to get their inspectors back into Iraq and he was refusing, that he may have been rushing his weapons into syria before suddenly having a change of heart and deciding to allow inspections?

I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm just curious if that possibility has been ruled out.  I remember some of the first Iraqis we captured from the "deck of cards" stated they had seen evidence that Saddam had weapons, and believed he had transported them to Syria.

Maybe I missed something.  Has it been completely ruled out that while the UN was trying to get their inspectors back into Iraq and he was refusing, that he may have been rushing his weapons into syria before suddenly having a change of heart and deciding to allow inspections?

I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm just curious if that possibility has been ruled out.  I remember some of the first Iraqis we captured from the "deck of cards" stated they had seen evidence that Saddam had weapons, and believed he had transported them to Syria.


I haven't heard much about that lately.  I think it's very possible the WMD's were smuggled into one of Iraq's neighboring countries.

I'm certain American and British forces know enough intelligence to keep civilian deaths at a minimum.  Besides the longer this goes on, the more time the enemy has to continue car bombing innocent people.


Well as the daughter of an retired R.A.F navigator my Dad always laughs in a hollow kind of way at so called 'Accurate bombing' He says there is no such thing. Yes you can hit a target  BUT bombs have a huge fallout zone that can't be changed it's the nature of bombs.It is enevitable that the wrong people will die.The media literally makes it sound like a bomb can fall on a single man standing in a crowd and have no other effect except to kill that one man !
These insergents aren't stupid they know if they hide in among civilians they are a hell of a lot safer.So what would be classed as keeping civilian deaths to a minimum ? What is a minimum figure that makes it ok to bomb the hell out of a place ? I think that is one lesson the R.A.F DID learn from the second world war.

Well as the daughter of an retired R.A.F navigator my Dad always laughs in a hollow kind of way at so called 'Accurate bombing' He says there is no such thing. Yes you can hit a target  BUT bombs have a huge fallout zone that can't be changed it's the nature of bombs.It is enevitable that the wrong people will die.The media literally makes it sound like a bomb can fall on a single man standing in a crowd and have no other effect except to kill that one man !
These insergents aren't stupid they know if they hide in among civilians they are a hell of a lot safer.So what would be classed as keeping civilian deaths to a minimum ? What is a minimum figure that makes it ok to bomb the hell out of a place ? I think that is one lesson the R.A.F DID learn from the second world war.


I didn't say there wouldn't be any civilian deaths, but we have to put our troops before civilians.  We have to put winning above all else.  We can bomb Iraq into oblivion, or we can bomb known targets.  There is a difference.  We couldn't win WWII fighting like this.

So if the Iraq war is simialar to WW I or II, ask yourself, who surrenders to us if we win this war?  Who do we sign a peace agreement with? 

No one.

That's because this is not similar to WW I&II.  This is an insurgent war and try as Bush would like to kill them all, the reality is that such a strategy creates even more insurgents.

WWI&II were real wars.  Iraq is a sheeshstorm that Bush chose to get us into and justified it based on lies.

I didn't say there wouldn't be any civilian deaths, but we have to put our troops before civilians. 
Sorry I disagree, who says American troops are more important than civilians ? They aren't ! American troop or civilian in the street they are all an equal human life regardless of which country they were born in !
I know you didn't say there wouldn't be civilian deaths, but what I'm saying to you is what is a 'justifiable' amount of civilian death ? It is inevitable that people will die in war but believe me you would feel very different if it was your whole family being blown to bits because someone was trying to wipe out the terrorists who just *might* be living across the street from you.

Sorry I disagree, who says American troops are more important than civilians ? They aren't ! American troop or civilian in the street they are all an equal human life regardless of which country they were born in !
I know you didn't say there wouldn't be civilian deaths, but what I'm saying to you is what is a 'justifiable' amount of civilian death ? It is inevitable that people will die in war but believe me you would feel very different if it was your whole family being blown to bits because someone was trying to wipe out the terrorists who just *might* be living across the street from you.


I agree that civilian lives should be saved wherever possible.  GW's theory would put civilian lives at risk. But in the long run, a "justifiable" amount of civilian death, in my opinion, is relative to the amount of civilian deaths currently at risk thanks to these foreign insurgents.  I don't know the exact figures off the top of my head, but suppose there is an estimate of 100 civilians per month being killed by insurgents.  If our bombs kill 200 civilians and are successful at defeating the insurgency, in the end we will have saved many, many lives, and we would be able to finally bring our troops home.

I think protection is key right now.  Equipment that could detect explosives from a distance would be a huge help.  Armor that can completely protect from gunfire.  Protection is the other option to GW's theory.  Make the insurgents attacks ineffective.

Yes we could bomb the **** out of the enclosed areas but the Yellow bearded b's would cowardly grab innocent kids/civilians as sheilds..that's how creeps fight.

IF we had tighter security at the airports we sure wouldn't be looking for Osama as furiously as we are either....



Looking furiously?  Thats a joke.  No high admin official has mentioned his name in - how long?  Jes H. Christ, the FBI know more about a radical professor of mine than her mother did, and she has the files to prove it, and we still, almost 4 years later, haven't caught the SOB?  No, I'm sorry, Lil' Georgie used 9/11 to attack THE WRONG GUY.  Now we are in a quagmire similar to Vietnam, and the result of losing will be x1000 worse - a Tailban - like state, or thousands more dead troops, and hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis.  And this time, there is  no "graceful" exit that I can see.

You didn't hear in the LAST 2 DAYS officials mentioned they have a pretty good idea where he is and are RESPECTING the country to which he is hiding on the border area-which we know is a country that is known for accepting terrorists to use as a safe haven..Rhymes with "LAUSI ANABIA' AND 'RAKISTAN'.

 

Yes we could bomb the **** out of the enclosed areas but the Yellow bearded b's would cowardly grab innocent kids/civilians as sheilds..that's how creeps fight.

That's silly.  When you're bombing a country from a plane, everybody dies anyway.

You didn't hear in the LAST 2 DAYS officials mentioned they have a pretty good idea where he is and are RESPECTING the country to which he is hiding on the border area-which we know is a country that is known for accepting terrorists to use as a safe haven..Rhymes with "LAUSI ANABIA' AND 'RAKISTAN'.

There is no border between Lausi Anabia and Rakistan!  They are separated by the persian gulf (or Iraq and Iran over land)
Just goes to show, you don't need to know where a country is to bomb it's people  ::)

As for the US respecting another country's borders, please be serious!

DIidn't get a look at it from a book, saw it in a news report for so many weeks when they first thought OBL went  to live in the caves..the region wasn't all Persian Gulf..it was a mountainous region.
'
Do you see US dive bombing the place based on a good guess? No so, so far that statement of 'respect' stands.

Is it an unwinnable 'Republican war'?
http://www.wnd.com/images/BUCHANAN(COLOR)2.jpg
By: Patrick J. Buchanan
June 22, 2005

From President Bush's Axis of Evil speech in January 2002 to the invasion in March 2003, some of us argued vehemently and ceaselessly against going to war.

If, following a U.S. withdrawal, the Baghdad government collapsed in the face of the insurgency, Iraq could split apart into a Kurdish north, a Shiite south and a radicalized Sunni center. Civil war could follow, with 2 million barrels a day of oil production taken off the world market in a matter of weeks.


Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44926


Wait a sec here.  I thought you said this wasn't about oil. 

You didn't hear in the LAST 2 DAYS officials mentioned they have a pretty good idea where he is and are RESPECTING the country to which he is hiding on the border area-which we know is a country that is known for accepting terrorists to use as a safe haven..Rhymes with "LAUSI ANABIA' AND 'RAKISTAN'.

 


Yes, I have read that we think we may know where he is, and the rest.  Are you questioning the loyalty of our allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?  Bush & co. would consider that heracy.