Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Putting them 'out of business'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Putting them 'out of business'


  • #2
    Bush is the man!!!

    President Bush wants to make sure the misery and humiliation is theirs, not ours. That will be determined not just by Iraqi and American troops on the ground in Iraq, but by the level and intensity of support at home.

    Bin Laden and his co-murderers are making a huge bet of their own. They are wagering that as in Vietnam 30 years ago, Lebanon 20 years ago and Mogadishu 11 years ago, America will lose heart and retreat.

    This may not be the war to end all wars, but if it isn't won, it could be the beginning of endless wars in which the United States and the rest of the free world never again know peace.

    Comment


    • #3
      Al Qaeda is much stronger now than ever thanks to the invasion of Iraq. According to Peter Bergen [1], the international invasion of Afghanistan had them on the ropes but the invasion of Iraq has resurrected Al Qaeda like never before.

      Iraq, formerly a place that crushed Al Qaeda operatives is now a haven for them. Iraq is now exports Al Qaeda terror to other countries.

      BTW, there's a simpler poll to this one on CNN (www.cnn.com) today.

      [1] http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewid...l?itemId=47633

      Comment


      • #4
        What Osama wanted:

        For the US to leave Saudi Arabia - he found it unacceptable for "infidels" to have military bases in the Holy Land of Islam.

        For a place in the mid-east to wage war against the west, close enough to enflame the muslim "street" and radicalize formerly moderate muslims so they would follow his plan for a fundamentalist Caliphate.

        To stay free.

        Bush removed the US from Saudi Arabia

        Bush started a purposeless war in Iraq

        Bush crippled the effort to catch Osama, he even said "I don't care about Osama".

        Osama got everything he wanted.
        Looks like Bush did too.

        -Mark

        Comment


        • #5
          40 percent YES!?
          Hey guys, I have some swa....er beach front property (near New Orleans) for sale if you're interested.
          b.l.

          Mark, the war in Iraq was not without purpose. Just as the Shrub's friends at Halliburton.

          Comment


          • #6
            quote:
            Has the Bush administration done a good job of putting terrorists 'out of business'?
            No, of course not.

            Just as the Johnson administration didn't do a good job of putting poverty out of business.

            And as no administration of either stripe will ever put illegal drugs out of business.

            That's because those three things, among many many others, are ingrained in human nature. And no political faction has ever changed human nature... they only exploit it to further their own agenda.

            Human nature will prevail until the end of the human species.

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:
              Originally posted by nacktman:
              Has the Bush administration done a good job of putting terrorists 'out of business'?


              I beleive what Bush is doing is right but i am sure that you have not seen the end of this for a long long time!

              Comment


              • #8
                A lot more needs to be done.

                Comment


                • #9
                  He/we should concentrait on getting that low life osama.

                  I know he's hiding in the mountains, I say we should have gotten him 1st. To say the US could not get him in those mountains....come on we took whole islands in WW 2. Against a well supplied army. An army with airplanes and everything.

                  No once again Bush dropped this ball.

                  Job 1- get osama, and the guy who makes those bad video tapes.

                  Your right jon71 A WHOLE lot more needs done.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My memory must be failing me worse than I thought. I just don't ever recall the shrub administration saying the reason for going into Iraq was
                    "To introduce representative government into that region of the world..."
                    I remember WMD's, Saddam was a bad man, and he was a threat to the US, and on and on and on.
                    Can someone help me with this one?

                    ken

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:
                      Originally posted by tinhfwv:
                      Among the purposes stated for the war in Iraq were: 1. To remove Sadam from power. 2. To introduce representative government into that region of the world in the belief that giving people a voice and a stake in their future would help drain the swamp that breeds the foot soldiers of terrorism.


                      Removing Saddam from power -- yes, but why because he was supposedly a threat to the West with his WMDs and "drones of death" that could launch an attack in 45 minutes. All completely false.

                      Representative government? That came after U.S. plans for Iraq fell apart (e.g. Chalabi was not quite connected in the way the U.S. thought he was.). A quick peek at the Middle East, including Iraq, seems to show (with a few exceptions) that "representative democracy" results in Islamic Fundamentalist states that support Islamist terrorism, unlike Saddam's reign in which Islamists were slaughtered as enemies (as with many others) by his secular government.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:
                        Originally posted by ken0254:
                        My memory must be failing me worse than I thought. I just don't ever recall the shrub administration saying the reason for going into Iraq was
                        "To introduce representative government into that region of the world..."
                        I remember WMD's, Saddam was a bad man, and he was a threat to the US, and on and on and on.
                        Can someone help me with this one?

                        ken


                        The publicly stated reasons for the war in Iraq have been seriously retconned. - short for retroactive continuity - a term of art appropriately borrowed from superhero comics and TV fiction. Retconning means to change or add to the past in order to better fit the present.

                        Prewar reasons to invade iraq:

                        Saddam had WMDs:
                        quote:
                        President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

                        Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

                        Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

                        "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

                        United Nations address, September 12, 2002

                        "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

                        "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

                        Radio address, October 5, 2002

                        "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

                        "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

                        "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

                        "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

                        Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

                        "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

                        State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

                        "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

                        Address to the nation, March 17, 2003


                        Iraq was cooperating with Al-Qaeda
                        quote:
                        # "It [Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." President Bush, March 17, 2003.

                        # "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."President Bush, May 1, 2003.


                        To preserve the credibility of the UN (I'm NOT making this up).
                        quote:
                        “We are enforcing the demands of the United Nations.” [Bush, 3/28/03]

                        US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to the press, 12 March:

                        The credibility of the UN is important to the world... The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that was offered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not?

                        And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasingly obvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration did not violate UN restrictions, but now admits that they do violate UN restrictions.


                        The new reasons:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Interesting question. We (United States) haven't put them (terrorists) out of business, but we have put a hurt on them. True, they are still a strong organization, but I believe we have eliminated them to the point where they are not as effective as they once were. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the future has in store.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's true- "You can't have a "thoughtful" argument with a liberal. It's like discussing
                            algebra with a monkey"

                            This was DEEPER than just WMDs and since the libs can not see any further than that micro-point, further discussion is senseless.

                            America forgot that the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center back when Clinton was in office ... and attacked Americans 7 or 8 other times. We played that pasifist role and all it did was to give them more reasons to attack us. The terrorists continue to bomb other countries at will who are not even in Iraq, so us occupying Iraq is not the issue.

                            Fighting terror is not a 90 minute made for television situation, and this was to last for YEARS as President Bush explained 3 years ago. This war on the world by the Islamic extremeists did NOT start at 9/11 nor did it start when Bush went into office ... it started 20 years ago in their own words. But as long as 1) the liberal media keeps misleading the public and 2) this administration has a PR camapign that is poor at best, America will continue to be unsure.

                            The media has done everything it can to BS America ... as I type this, news man Wolf Blitzer is telling the Pakistani leader about his country, while the Pakistan president is trying to explain to Mr. Blitzer that he was wrong.

                            I wish that I could as a few questions to these liberals such as "If you care about women around the world, why dont you celebrate that for the first time EVER, women in Iraq can vote ... plus are being elected into office in Iraq and other middle-east nations?" or "If you care about womena and children, why wasnt it good to stop the daily torture of women at the hands of Iraqi soldiers under Saddam?" or " if you cared about starving childen, according to UNICEF, about 3,000 children a month starved in Iraq under Saddam while he sold oil in the 'Oil for Food' program ... and he kept the money .... why didnt you do anything about it?" Instead, we have those bubble heads asking stupid "how do you feel" questions to anti-war moms.

                            So, no, this is NOT something to be solved on a time-table, and as long as lib politicians keep asking those kinds of questions, we see that they just DONT GET IT. Now, dont get me started. In fact, I am not going to check this for grammer or spelling ... my BP is rising.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by blackrebel:
                              America forgot that the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center back when Clinton was in office ... and attacked Americans 7 or 8 other times.

                              Yep, and the perpetrators are sitting in US prisons. The other "6 or 7" attacks within the US didn't happen, they were thwarted . The only Terrorist attacks you can point to between the two WTC attacks were overseas, or done by domestic terrorists like Eric Rudolf or Tim McVeigh.

                              http://www.makethemaccountable.com/m...dTerrorism.htm
                              http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/101701a.html

                              quote:
                              I wish that I could as a few questions to these liberals such as "If you care about women around the world, why dont you celebrate that for the first time EVER, women in Iraq can vote ... plus are being elected into office in Iraq and other middle-east nations?" or "If you care about womena and children, why wasnt it good to stop the daily torture of women at the hands of Iraqi soldiers under Saddam?" or " if you cared about starving childen, according to UNICEF, about 3,000 children a month starved in Iraq under Saddam while he sold oil in the 'Oil for Food' program ... and he kept the money .... why didnt you do anything about it?" Instead, we have those bubble heads asking stupid "how do you feel" questions to anti-war moms.

                              So, no, this is NOT something to be solved on a time-table, and as long as lib politicians keep asking those kinds of questions, we see that they just DONT GET IT. Now, dont get me started. In fact, I am not going to check this for grammer or spelling ... my BP is rising.


                              Who has argued that giving women the vote was a bad thing? Or stopping the starving of children? Only neo-cons building strawmen.

                              Small correction, women HAD the vote under Saddam, it just didn't mean anything. Iraq's secular government was the most egalitarian in the region, women had full legal rights and were not subject to restrictive Sharia rules. Unfortunately in a dictatorship having full legal rights doesn't amount to much. Hopefully women will fair better under the laws in the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

                              -Mark

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X