PDA

View Full Version : Why President Bush should be Re-elected



James_Jerome
14 Oct 04,, 06:20
Election 2004

Why George W. Bush should be Re-elected

If you are the type of person who commits to a political party, regardless of the issues, or the candidates position on them, then you are probably too closed-minded to read this article past the title. However, if you have an open mind, or if you have been wondering about who to vote for in 2004, you should consider the following analysis.

People are concerned about issues that affect their daily lives such as jobs, environment, education, and social security benefits. However, the key issues must take precedence over our comfort of living. We must secure our own country. It does no good to protect our country if we run the economy into the ground, but it also does no good to have a strong economy if we are attacked, and destroyed by terrorists.

In any election, I will vote for whichever candidate I believe is the right person for the job regardless of party affiliation. In 2000 , I was decidedly for Al Gore. When Mr. Bush won the election, I was not happy, and could not wait for 2004 so that he could be removed from the office that I believed he did not rightfully deserve. I was also waiting to see if his economic plans would fail.

Then came September 11, 2001. The nation was caught off guard. We were hit in a way that we never believed the enemy would be successful in accomplishing. We were wrong. No one person, administration, nor agency was to blame. It was a failure of our entire system that had crumbled over decades of relative peace, and complacency.

After 2001, everything changed, and I had to reassess my opinions of President Bush. The country was headed for a severe recession, and I could not rightfully blame President Bush. All of the attacks on President Bush for being the first President in history to lose this many jobs, etc., etc., is a farce. September eleventh caused these problems, and any other president would have had the same statistics and downfall. Since the attack, the stability and gradual re-growth of the economy is on a steady incline because President Bush has restored confidence to the American people, and wealthy investors by providing all Americans with tax cuts.

In the wake of the attack, the only thing that mattered to me was if President Bush was going to rise to the occasion, respond to the attack, and protect against future threats. I was truly proud of him, and pleasantly surprised. President Bush made a thoughtful, and deliberate decision to pursue those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September eleventh attack, and to continue the campaign against terrorists, and their supporters.

I agree with that policy. Therefore, in light of the way President George W. Bush has conducted himself in the face of great adversity, the fact that he has faced tough decisions and made the right choices, and that he has the resolve to see it through, I believe he is the right person to continue with the job for the next four years.

The first point in support of my position is that President Bush already has the experience of being President. I believe that senator Kerry would be a gamble because we do not know how he would perform beyond the capacity of a senator. Any time we elect a "new" president, we take a gamble. In my opinion, this is not a good time to take risks, and gamble on a new leader.

Secondly, President Bush has shown the willingness to risk popularity to pursue the terrorists and those who support them. This means that he had the courage of his convictions to go into Iraq at a time when it was necessary to do so, even when some nations, and politicians did not agree. National security is not a popularity contest.

Senator Kerry has said the war in Iraq was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." That statement contains three separate issues. First, that it was "the wrong war." This comment is not about location. This war was to verify that Saddam was not hiding weapons or supporting terrorists. Thus Senator Kerry is saying that he knew, before we entered Iraq, that there were no weapons, and no link to Al Qaeda. "Wrong war" means we should have allowed Saddam to avoid inspections as long as he wanted.

Secondly, he said, "in the wrong place." Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iraq. His refusal to allow inspections raised the legitimate question that he might be hiding weapons of mass destruction. The only logical place to find out if Saddam had weapons or not, was in Iraq – basic geography and common sense. War fronts on terror, including Afghanistan, are separate issues. Thus, this part of Kerry's statement was also wrong.

Thirdly, Senator Kerry said the war in Iraq was "at the wrong time." His argument is that we should have waited longer. He says that the President should only take us to war "as a last resort." What does Senator Kerry consider as a last resort, perhaps the day after the next attack? The "last resort" was reached the moment we could not verify that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Reasonable doubt gave probable cause to act. Furthermore, to say "wrong war," and "wrong time" is a contradiction. The proper statement is either "right war at the wrong time," or "wrong war at any time." Nevertheless, his statement is wrong. It was the right war in every aspect.

When President Bush says that the reason we went into Iraq is because "the enemy attacked us," he is not confusing Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden as Senator Kerry suggests. He is stating the fact that before the attack of September eleventh, we would have been likely to push diplomacy and negotiations to their limit with Saddam. President Bush was saying that, as a result of being attacked by the enemy (terrorists), we have adopted a different policy for dealing with dictators like Saddam, and it does not include sitting at negotiations while Iraq could be developing dangerous weapons.

Senator Kerry suggests that the only true terrorist threat is in Afghanistan. It is obvious to me that terrorists move freely throughout the world, and as soon as you close one pocket in which they might hide, they move to another. We must simultaneously close all areas of concealment, training camps, and storage of weapons that can cause harm to the American people. Furthermore, the complaint that Osama has not been captured is not pertinent. These terrorists will not stop when he is gone. Bringing him to justice is an eventual goal, not a top priority over removing current threats.

Another issue that Senator Kerry is arguing is that there was no connection found between Saddam Hussein, and the attack of September 11, 2001. This argument is of no consequences. A reasonable suspicion of a connection existed shortly after 2001, however that is not the reason that we went into Iraq. Furthermore, Al Qeada terrorists were responsible for the attack on September eleventh. Saddam Hussein had in the past, and still did, support and harbor Al Qeada cells, their members, and training camps in Iraq.

President Bush acted on a "good faith basis" having reason to believe that the likelihood of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction was high. Just because a few stubborn members of the United Nations did not have the stomach to endure the casualties of war, does not dictate the policies of the United States of America. Other nations agreed with the decision and formed an international coalition of allies.

I think Americans who oppose the decision to invade Iraq are hypocrites, and are not consistent with their views on dealing with criminal conduct. It does not matter whether the criminals are domestic or foreign. Suppose a known crack-house was in your neighborhood, and was owned by a convicted drug-dealer, rapist, and child molester. If he had been paroled from prison on the conditions that he not have any drugs, weapons, or minor children in his home, a parole officer might be required inspect his home at regular intervals. If the gang leader refused, or interfered with the lawful duties of the parole officer, the court would most likely hold him in contempt and have him arrested.

If informants told the police that he had drugs, weapons, and had taken a woman and her children hostage, you would expect the police to enter the home and investigate. He has no choice but to allow the police to enter, even without further warrant issued by the court. The police are always justified in entering a home where they have reason to believe that someone's life is in danger. The gang members might be raping the abducted woman, and molesting her children. If he refused to let the police in his home, or would not let them look in certain rooms, he would be arrested for obstruction of justice.

In this case, the police would have every right to bust down the door and search the home. If they found no weapons, and no drugs, but rescue the hostages, they were still justified in entering the home. The parolee was in violation of the court order to allow inspections, and the police could not risk waiting to find out if the threat was genuine. This is the same justification that I believe we had when going into Iraq. It did not matter if we found weapons or not, the fact that we could not verify there were no weapons, gave cause for the U.S. to take immediate action. President Bush made the executive decision not to wait until the enemy had time to gather their weapons while politicians debated the decision. The innocent citizens of Iraq deserved to be freed from Saddam's bondage.

In fact, we still don't know if there were weapons that were moved out of the country, or if they are still being hidden in the regions that are under the terrorist's control. General Tommy Franks had stated that we did find all of the elements for which Saddam Hussein could have created weapons of mass destruction. He compared it to possessing hydrogen and oxygen. You don't have anything separately, but if you put those elements together, you have water. General Franks said that Saddam Hussein had the elements needed to create weapons of mass destruction within days, weeks, or months.

A good example of the necessity to go on the offense with Saddam exists in a line from the movie Terminator with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sgt. Reese says, "That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!" These words seemed to have an impact on Sarah Conner, the intended target of the terminator, and they should have an impact on the American people.

The terrorists have declared a "Jihad" – a holy war on America. They believe that they have a commandment from "Allah" to kill all of the "infidels." These terrorists are killing machines. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They don't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all Americans are dead! Therefore, we must terminate them before they terminate us!

I would think that my fellow citizens, as well as the rest of the world, would have learned this lesson by now. We cannot wait until an attack is upon us. We must defeat terrorists, and their supporters before they gain the strength and ability to destroy us. Negotiations only work with those who are honest in the first place. President Bush did not mislead or lie about the war. He simply stated that we had reason to suspect that Saddam was hiding a weapons program, and, since Saddam would not cooperate, we must enter to find out the truth. After 2001, the priorities of America changed.

Perhaps it is a similar change in our minds, and hearts that also took place after December 7, 1941, yet by 2001, we had forgotten the lesson. However, we were quickly reminded of what can happen to a Super Power that takes a nap on the job. There is no room for mistakes in national security. Your enemies can fail many times with little consequences, but if we fail just once, ships are sunk, buildings collapse, and people die.

As philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." In the 1930s, Adolph Hitler rose to power, and became the dictator of Germany. In 1933, he opposed the League of Nations, the same as Saddam opposed the United Nations in 2003. Hitler denounced the Versailles Treaty which restricted Germany's armed forces, just as Saddam violated resolutions calling for inspections of his weapons program. In 1938, Hitler's army entered Austria and seized the country, in the same way Saddam's army entered Kuwait.

Both England and France were shocked by Hitler's aggression, but did nothing to stop the attack. Next, Hitler sent his army into Poland who asked its ally, France, for help – France refused. Hitler then marched into France (France apparently has not learned much in the past sixty years). The lesson is – if an evil dictator is invading peaceful countries, you had better do something to help your neighbors or you are likely to be next.

Most people will recall that the Japanese military, in an unprovoked attack, bombed the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as President Roosevelt said, "a date that will live in infamy." One difference between then and now is that in World War II we had an enemy who held a geographic location which we could counter-attack. In current times, the enemy is a roving band of criminal terrorists who hide under different rocks, in different caves, and in different countries every day.

Wars are historically marred with debates over policy, strategy, and legitimacy. The Vietnam War was often referred to as a "quagmire." The reason that the Vietnam War was such a "predicament" was because politicians kept trying to appease the international community. The politicians restricted our troops from carrying out the mission. We did not lose the war in Vietnam – we were just prevented from defeating the enemy.

People who criticize the war in Vietnam might forget the circumstances that took us to that war, and the previous Korean war in 1950. The Koreans did not attack the U.S. North Korea invaded South Korea, and the U.S., along with its allies, came to the defense of South Korea. In 1954, the Vietnamese did not attack the U.S. Communist Vietcong invaded South Vietnam, and the U.S. came to the defense of the South Vietnamese.

Both wars were bloody battles, but we did what we were ordered to do – protect the people from being attacked. The main problem within both of these wars was not the decision to go to war, but was the "indecision" of the politicians to support the war, and lack of resolve to finish the mission.

The ironic thing is that Senator Kerry has become an exact replica of the type of politician that created the difficulties of the war he protested as a young soldier. He has become his own worst enemy – a politician who refuses to support our troops in battle, and give full authority to the military to fight an enemy that needs to be defeated. He has become a politician who protests a justified war against an evil enemy.

Vietnam should have taught us that when your Commander in Chief decides to send soldiers to war, give them the equipment they need, the authority to defeat the enemy, and the respect of your support. Nothing loses a battle quicker than the loss of fighting spirit within the soldiers. Nothing kills that spirit quicker than when soldiers feel that they do not have the support of their own countrymen, or that what they are fighting for is wrong. Senator Kerry should remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships!"

There comes a time when we must - - not could, or should, but must use force to ensure the safety of America. There is an excellent example of this in the movie "First Knight" with Sean Connery as King Arthur. When Arthur committed his army to protect the city of Leonesse, his weaker neighbor, the enemy of Camelot, Malagant, told him, "Your fine words are talking you out of peace, and into war!" King Arthur stood firm and said, "There is a peace that's only to be found on the other side of war. If that battle must come, then I will fight it." Every knight at the round table stood and said, "and I."

As to the "test" of when to go to war, I agree with a philosophy of lethal force used in law enforcement. I know a retired police officer who has a clear understanding of when it is appropriate to use deadly force in any situation. When a police officer has drawn his weapon on a suspect who presents a threat to others (spouse, children, bystanders, or officers), as my friend puts it, "deadly force is used when you can no longer allow that person to continue doing whatever it is they are doing for one second longer."

We could not afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue interfering with weapons inspections for one second longer. Saddam was displaying the same defiance toward the United Nations that Adolph Hitler did to its predecessor, the League of Nations, in 1933. Saddam was a genuine threat to world peace, and it was the right time for the Allied forces to enter Iraq and enforce the inspections.

Terrorism is real. The war on terrorism is a necessity. It is here and now – not later. Everyone must choose their side. You are either with us, or against us. You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. In my opinion, those who want to give the enemy time to regroup, train, and prepare for the next attack while playing negotiating games, are part of the problem. Saddam Hussein's regime was part of the problem. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do, in the right place, and at the right time.

Many songs convey the mood and spirit of the American People during difficult times. For World Wars I, and II, George M. Cohen offered the song "Over There" with the lyrics "So prepare, say a prayer. Send the word, send the word to beware. We'll be over, we're coming over, and we won't come back till it's over over there." That is the resolve that we had in the 1940s to stand behind our President and the Armed Forces.

After September 11, 2001, I can remember standing side by side with soldiers, veterans, and civilians alike, with tears streaming down our cheeks, singing the words to Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." I hope that each American listens to that song a few more times before election day. I get a little choked up every time I hear the words "And I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me, and I'd gladly stand up next to you, and defend her still today – cuz there ain't no doubt I love this land, God Bless the USA.

Senator Kerry has not shown the courage to send our troops to war against a clear, and present threat, the wisdom to act before we are attacked, nor the fortitude to see the mission through until the enemy is defeated. I suspect that if John Kerry was the Commander in Chief in 1941, we would not have gone to war with Germany because Hitler did not attack us on December 7, 1941. The evil leaders of Russia, Germany, and Japan were in a conspiracy to destroy America during WW II, and in 2003, terrorists were conspiring with Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and others to do the same.

We can deal with economic hardship. We can deal with a few strained friendships with our allies. What we can't deal with is being dead. The enemy has no intention of stopping until America is gone, and Americans are dead. The enemy does not follow the rules, and does not care who dies in the process. If they get their hands on nuclear weapons, the United States will be gone in the blink of an eye. Thus, we must terminate them, before they terminate us. We need a president, during this crucial time, who will not hesitate to make a decision which calls for quick action when faced with a deceptive, and evil enemy. Therefore, we need President George W. Bush to finish the job.

Respectfully,

James Jerome

(feel free to copy this letter and pass it on to others)

tarek
14 Oct 04,, 16:46
"Kerry the ‘flip-flop’ is out
Nasim Zehra

The writer is an Islamabad-based
security analyst, is a fellow of the
Harvard University Asia Center


Some John Kerry supporters see a "subtle class war theme" that they believe the Kerry campaign is invoking. Sitting at the margins of mainstream politics and in the centre of intellectual and academic debates there are those Americans who hope to revive an ideological battle; they frame the campaign in ideological terms. One Kerry supporter recently argued that "not just for this election, but that for a reemergence of a dominant progressive centre-left and the vanquishing of the rising right, a wedge needs to be driven between the often anti-establishment cultural right and the crypto-fascist corporatists. They are currently joined at the hip by dominionism, neo-con foreign policy and gospel of wealth theology." Makes the intellectual adrenalin run but not voters towards John Kerry! But as the Kerry supporter he, himself, subsequently acknowledged, "these threads are not strong enough to keep the opposition under well-applied pressure."

The liberals are rallying website support for Kerry. Framing it in a recent publication "Misstating the State of the Union" a website called the Media Matters Action Network (MMAN) in ideological terms claims that "it dissects this conservative misinformation campaign, while unmasking the dark ideological agenda and rank dishonesty behind all the cable TV and radio "hot air." The book, maintains this website, reveals a simple truth that the media too often obscures: By every objective measure, Bill Clinton’s presidency was immeasurably better for the United States than George W Bush’s presidency. Yet, MMAN maintains that, "Yet, an army of conservative pundits have conspired to lie to the public about both Clinton’s and Bush’s records, denying the proven success of progressive policies and leadership, while shamelessly covering up abject conservative failures."

Similarly, other attacking themes put forward by Kerry’s ‘thinking’ supporters do not necessarily translate into political ammunition against the incumbent president. Attacking themes are in abundance; Bush doesn’t represent true Republican values, but only benefits the large corporations and very rich people, not the rank and file; the Iraq war has been financed by borrowing and the main benefits of success will accrue to major corporations, the Iraq war is securing US oil supplies and increasing corporate profit and not increasing security for Americans or reducing terrorism, it is not gaining currency; the Bush Administration has mislead the Republican Party into pursuit of US strategic goals in the most costly and disruptive way; with a staggering fiscal deficit Bush has violated an important tenet of Republicanism — fiscal responsibility. Their veracity aside, these themes have not ‘caught on.’

Meanwhile, the attack on Kerry from his opponents cuts more ice. For example, in call-in radio programs the reiterative anti-Kerry themes are many "if you have a teenage daughter and you want her to go and get an abortion without your knowing, vote for Kerry; if you want to take the name of God from the pledge of allegiance; Kerry is insulting our allies, undermining our soldiers, Kerry has a 30 year record of wanting it both ways...people don’t know what he stands for". And on go the attacks.

Flamboyance, directness and clarity combined with some charisma make for an effective political communicator. However, Kerry the man whose "legislative achievements" as The Washington Post reports "in such areas as acid-rain control, fisheries protection and foreign policy have resulted largely from patient behind-the-scenes diplomacy with members of both parties, and with little public controversy" does not seem to have what it takes to be an effective political communicator.

Compared to Bush, Kerry is intellectually rigorous and sound, yet may sound boring to the average simple-minded American voter. Clearly his three dozen domestic policy councils, two dozen foreign policy groups, dozens of consultants, and many other casual advisers tell him, help him develop a sophisticated understanding of issues. Not, however, better communication techniques. Bush by contrast seems to be doing well by his cowboy Texan style communication.

Continuity has not been a virtue with Kerry. His mind moves in the ‘greys’, as his changing views and actions illustrate; his Vietnam experience was first engagement and then a strong critique. And as Bush would say through his voting record on tax cut, health cut, social security cuts etc. He has been changing even his election management teams. He’s on a third one now. Maybe these are strengths of a reflective mind but Kerry needed to strategise better as a communicator for his electioneering campaign. His ‘Mr flip-flop’ image is growing. This hurts him politically. Can he lead in these times of great uncertainty, the voters must ask.

Kerry, with all his intellectual strength, has been on the defensive. In public, he speaks tentatively. He explains more and asserts less. Good teaching technique but a bad rule to follow in election campaigns. He comes across as tentative. As he defends himself against Bush’s attack that about his past actions and present claims on health care, tax cuts, social security benefits and abortion not adding up, Kerry has already a ‘nailed down’ candidate. If your opponent is forcing you to clarify, he has psychologically nailed you down. Kerry has been nailed down. His Vietnam engagement is being turned into a liability for him. For the average American, Kerry must come across as the tentative dissenter. Hear him carefully. On abortion, on the Iraq war, on defense spending he isn’t saying that is much different from the Bush message. Kerry’s criticism of the war has been muted. Unable to really stick his neck out on the Iraq war, he falls between two stools. As such, Kerry is unlikely to attract fence sitters.

Arguing the absence of any real difference between the two candidates on the Iraq war, Eileen McNamara, the Globe Columnist wrote in her October 6 column ‘Soldiering through Iraq’, "This is not a reassuring election cycle to be the mother of two teenage sons — or an adolescent daughter, for that matter. The spectre of a military draft hangs over this presidential campaign like smoke above a burning Iraqi oil field." McNamara maintained that the two candidates have the same views on Iraq. President Bush, she wrote "is promising to ‘’stay the course" in Iraq, keeping troops there until he can declare "mission accomplished" more convincingly than he did on that aircraft carrier 17 months ago. He has been extending the tours of unhappy reservists to do it." On the other hand, Senator John F Kerry McNamara recalled "is vowing to be ‘steadfast and resolved,’ keeping boots on the ground for another four years. ‘I’m not talking about leaving,’ the Democratic presidential nominee said during his debate with the president last week. ‘I’m talking about winning." The anguished columnist ended by asking "this mother wants to know how and with whose sons and daughters on the ground? Essentially, Kerry is unable to tell the voters what is the real difference between his and Bush’s policy on Iraq. He merely says ‘he would have done better in winning the peace.’ He doesn’t say how. The critics of war here argue that it may take the exit of US forces from Iraq to ‘win the peace.’

For Kerry the worst on the war question is yet to come. Sinclair Broadcasting Group, is planning to broadcast the anti-Kerry film, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, which according to the Los Angeles Times "features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war." The Sinclair Group, plans to show this in its 62 television stations, 14 of which are in the key political swing states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The film maker former Washington Times reporter and official in the Bush administration, Carlton Sherwood, tells viewers on the film’s website: "Intended or not, Lt Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating the images of those who served in combat as deranged, drug-addicted psychopaths, baby killers" that has endured for 30 years.

In contrast with his straight forward, simple and direct communicator Kerry is a long-winded communicator. His message is overloaded. Too much ‘if’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybes’. Good for scholarship for teaching for an informed discourse. Not for electioneering communication in which the ‘straight and simple’ makes for the most piercing pitch. In a country where rule of law exists, peoples’ basic material needs are generally met and the popular media doesn’t burden you with the mess your country’s foreign policy creates, even a minimal amount of self-critique can become mentally cumbersome. It can make the average voter walk away. In an increasingly chaotic and turbulent world, in much of which the US voters know their own country is involved, they want to hear a reassuring message. That all is well, that all will be well, that force is necessary to fight ‘evil,’ that the US government is doing just that. Bush says just this. He’s on a winning ticket. Barring a major upset."

ChrisF202
14 Oct 04,, 23:32
Bravo James, exellent read, job well done :biggrin:

barrowaj
15 Oct 04,, 21:17
Your article makes some good points. It does make sense to me to try to keep the same leader during a time of war so that we have a consistant policy. Also, president Bush has done a good job of keeping our country safe.

However, the criticism of Kerrys "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" remark is oversimplified. When he calls it the "wrong war" it in no way implies that he did not beleive that Saddam Hussein had WMD. There is no direct connection. What "wrong war" means, is that if we had done as we should, and continued inspections, we would have discovered that Iraq did not in fact have WMD. Even the cheif weapons inspector didn't think that they existed in Iraq, yet Bush was so arrogant to rely completely on sketchy CIA reports, which were filtered from Iraqis wanting to gain favor with the US.

The statement that Saddam supported Al Quiada cells in Iraq is completely untrue as well. Just recently the CIA admitted that there were no links between Al Quiada and Iraq.

Finally, you say that Bush went to war on a "good faith basis." Well, it is clear that only an idiot would go to war on a good faith basis. When you are going to make a decision that will kill thousands of people, then you better have hard evidence, not just a hunch.

Prodigal Son
15 Oct 04,, 22:58
Nice to see right-wing ideology masquerading a objective analysis. Isn't that what GOPers accuse liberals of doing?

Confed999
16 Oct 04,, 01:00
and continued inspections, we would have discovered that Iraq did not in fact have WMD.
How long do you think it would have taken a hundred guys to search 437,072 square kilometers without cooperation?

then you better have hard evidence, not just a hunch.
There was hard evidence Saddam was killing, and worse, his own people.

Confed999
16 Oct 04,, 01:01
Nice to see right-wing ideology masquerading a objective analysis. Isn't that what GOPers accuse liberals of doing?
I accuse everyone of doing it, everything is biased.

porsteamboy
17 Oct 04,, 12:59
Election 2004

Why George W. Bush should be Re-elected

If you are the type of person who commits to a political party, regardless of the issues, or the candidates position on them, then you are probably too closed-minded to read this article past the title. However, if you have an open mind, or if you have been wondering about who to vote for in 2004, you should consider the following analysis.

People are concerned about issues that affect their daily lives such as jobs, environment, education, and social security benefits. However, the key issues must take precedence over our comfort of living. We must secure our own country. It does no good to protect our country if we run the economy into the ground, but it also does no good to have a strong economy if we are attacked, and destroyed by terrorists.

In any election, I will vote for whichever candidate I believe is the right person for the job regardless of party affiliation. In 2000 , I was decidedly for Al Gore. When Mr. Bush won the election, I was not happy, and could not wait for 2004 so that he could be removed from the office that I believed he did not rightfully deserve. I was also waiting to see if his economic plans would fail.

Then came September 11, 2001. The nation was caught off guard. We were hit in a way that we never believed the enemy would be successful in accomplishing. We were wrong. No one person, administration, nor agency was to blame. It was a failure of our entire system that had crumbled over decades of relative peace, and complacency.

After 2001, everything changed, and I had to reassess my opinions of President Bush. The country was headed for a severe recession, and I could not rightfully blame President Bush. All of the attacks on President Bush for being the first President in history to lose this many jobs, etc., etc., is a farce. September eleventh caused these problems, and any other president would have had the same statistics and downfall. Since the attack, the stability and gradual re-growth of the economy is on a steady incline because President Bush has restored confidence to the American people, and wealthy investors by providing all Americans with tax cuts.

In the wake of the attack, the only thing that mattered to me was if President Bush was going to rise to the occasion, respond to the attack, and protect against future threats. I was truly proud of him, and pleasantly surprised. President Bush made a thoughtful, and deliberate decision to pursue those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September eleventh attack, and to continue the campaign against terrorists, and their supporters.

I agree with that policy. Therefore, in light of the way President George W. Bush has conducted himself in the face of great adversity, the fact that he has faced tough decisions and made the right choices, and that he has the resolve to see it through, I believe he is the right person to continue with the job for the next four years.

The first point in support of my position is that President Bush already has the experience of being President. I believe that senator Kerry would be a gamble because we do not know how he would perform beyond the capacity of a senator. Any time we elect a "new" president, we take a gamble. In my opinion, this is not a good time to take risks, and gamble on a new leader.

Secondly, President Bush has shown the willingness to risk popularity to pursue the terrorists and those who support them. This means that he had the courage of his convictions to go into Iraq at a time when it was necessary to do so, even when some nations, and politicians did not agree. National security is not a popularity contest.

Senator Kerry has said the war in Iraq was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." That statement contains three separate issues. First, that it was "the wrong war." This comment is not about location. This war was to verify that Saddam was not hiding weapons or supporting terrorists. Thus Senator Kerry is saying that he knew, before we entered Iraq, that there were no weapons, and no link to Al Qaeda. "Wrong war" means we should have allowed Saddam to avoid inspections as long as he wanted.

Secondly, he said, "in the wrong place." Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iraq. His refusal to allow inspections raised the legitimate question that he might be hiding weapons of mass destruction. The only logical place to find out if Saddam had weapons or not, was in Iraq – basic geography and common sense. War fronts on terror, including Afghanistan, are separate issues. Thus, this part of Kerry's statement was also wrong.

Thirdly, Senator Kerry said the war in Iraq was "at the wrong time." His argument is that we should have waited longer. He says that the President should only take us to war "as a last resort." What does Senator Kerry consider as a last resort, perhaps the day after the next attack? The "last resort" was reached the moment we could not verify that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Reasonable doubt gave probable cause to act. Furthermore, to say "wrong war," and "wrong time" is a contradiction. The proper statement is either "right war at the wrong time," or "wrong war at any time." Nevertheless, his statement is wrong. It was the right war in every aspect.

When President Bush says that the reason we went into Iraq is because "the enemy attacked us," he is not confusing Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden as Senator Kerry suggests. He is stating the fact that before the attack of September eleventh, we would have been likely to push diplomacy and negotiations to their limit with Saddam. President Bush was saying that, as a result of being attacked by the enemy (terrorists), we have adopted a different policy for dealing with dictators like Saddam, and it does not include sitting at negotiations while Iraq could be developing dangerous weapons.

Senator Kerry suggests that the only true terrorist threat is in Afghanistan. It is obvious to me that terrorists move freely throughout the world, and as soon as you close one pocket in which they might hide, they move to another. We must simultaneously close all areas of concealment, training camps, and storage of weapons that can cause harm to the American people. Furthermore, the complaint that Osama has not been captured is not pertinent. These terrorists will not stop when he is gone. Bringing him to justice is an eventual goal, not a top priority over removing current threats.

Another issue that Senator Kerry is arguing is that there was no connection found between Saddam Hussein, and the attack of September 11, 2001. This argument is of no consequences. A reasonable suspicion of a connection existed shortly after 2001, however that is not the reason that we went into Iraq. Furthermore, Al Qeada terrorists were responsible for the attack on September eleventh. Saddam Hussein had in the past, and still did, support and harbor Al Qeada cells, their members, and training camps in Iraq.

President Bush acted on a "good faith basis" having reason to believe that the likelihood of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction was high. Just because a few stubborn members of the United Nations did not have the stomach to endure the casualties of war, does not dictate the policies of the United States of America. Other nations agreed with the decision and formed an international coalition of allies.

I think Americans who oppose the decision to invade Iraq are hypocrites, and are not consistent with their views on dealing with criminal conduct. It does not matter whether the criminals are domestic or foreign. Suppose a known crack-house was in your neighborhood, and was owned by a convicted drug-dealer, rapist, and child molester. If he had been paroled from prison on the conditions that he not have any drugs, weapons, or minor children in his home, a parole officer might be required inspect his home at regular intervals. If the gang leader refused, or interfered with the lawful duties of the parole officer, the court would most likely hold him in contempt and have him arrested.

If informants told the police that he had drugs, weapons, and had taken a woman and her children hostage, you would expect the police to enter the home and investigate. He has no choice but to allow the police to enter, even without further warrant issued by the court. The police are always justified in entering a home where they have reason to believe that someone's life is in danger. The gang members might be raping the abducted woman, and molesting her children. If he refused to let the police in his home, or would not let them look in certain rooms, he would be arrested for obstruction of justice.

In this case, the police would have every right to bust down the door and search the home. If they found no weapons, and no drugs, but rescue the hostages, they were still justified in entering the home. The parolee was in violation of the court order to allow inspections, and the police could not risk waiting to find out if the threat was genuine. This is the same justification that I believe we had when going into Iraq. It did not matter if we found weapons or not, the fact that we could not verify there were no weapons, gave cause for the U.S. to take immediate action. President Bush made the executive decision not to wait until the enemy had time to gather their weapons while politicians debated the decision. The innocent citizens of Iraq deserved to be freed from Saddam's bondage.

In fact, we still don't know if there were weapons that were moved out of the country, or if they are still being hidden in the regions that are under the terrorist's control. General Tommy Franks had stated that we did find all of the elements for which Saddam Hussein could have created weapons of mass destruction. He compared it to possessing hydrogen and oxygen. You don't have anything separately, but if you put those elements together, you have water. General Franks said that Saddam Hussein had the elements needed to create weapons of mass destruction within days, weeks, or months.

A good example of the necessity to go on the offense with Saddam exists in a line from the movie Terminator with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sgt. Reese says, "That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!" These words seemed to have an impact on Sarah Conner, the intended target of the terminator, and they should have an impact on the American people.

The terrorists have declared a "Jihad" – a holy war on America. They believe that they have a commandment from "Allah" to kill all of the "infidels." These terrorists are killing machines. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They don't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all Americans are dead! Therefore, we must terminate them before they terminate us!

I would think that my fellow citizens, as well as the rest of the world, would have learned this lesson by now. We cannot wait until an attack is upon us. We must defeat terrorists, and their supporters before they gain the strength and ability to destroy us. Negotiations only work with those who are honest in the first place. President Bush did not mislead or lie about the war. He simply stated that we had reason to suspect that Saddam was hiding a weapons program, and, since Saddam would not cooperate, we must enter to find out the truth. After 2001, the priorities of America changed.

Perhaps it is a similar change in our minds, and hearts that also took place after December 7, 1941, yet by 2001, we had forgotten the lesson. However, we were quickly reminded of what can happen to a Super Power that takes a nap on the job. There is no room for mistakes in national security. Your enemies can fail many times with little consequences, but if we fail just once, ships are sunk, buildings collapse, and people die.

As philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." In the 1930s, Adolph Hitler rose to power, and became the dictator of Germany. In 1933, he opposed the League of Nations, the same as Saddam opposed the United Nations in 2003. Hitler denounced the Versailles Treaty which restricted Germany's armed forces, just as Saddam violated resolutions calling for inspections of his weapons program. In 1938, Hitler's army entered Austria and seized the country, in the same way Saddam's army entered Kuwait.

Both England and France were shocked by Hitler's aggression, but did nothing to stop the attack. Next, Hitler sent his army into Poland who asked its ally, France, for help – France refused. Hitler then marched into France (France apparently has not learned much in the past sixty years). The lesson is – if an evil dictator is invading peaceful countries, you had better do something to help your neighbors or you are likely to be next.

Most people will recall that the Japanese military, in an unprovoked attack, bombed the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as President Roosevelt said, "a date that will live in infamy." One difference between then and now is that in World War II we had an enemy who held a geographic location which we could counter-attack. In current times, the enemy is a roving band of criminal terrorists who hide under different rocks, in different caves, and in different countries every day.

Wars are historically marred with debates over policy, strategy, and legitimacy. The Vietnam War was often referred to as a "quagmire." The reason that the Vietnam War was such a "predicament" was because politicians kept trying to appease the international community. The politicians restricted our troops from carrying out the mission. We did not lose the war in Vietnam – we were just prevented from defeating the enemy.

People who criticize the war in Vietnam might forget the circumstances that took us to that war, and the previous Korean war in 1950. The Koreans did not attack the U.S. North Korea invaded South Korea, and the U.S., along with its allies, came to the defense of South Korea. In 1954, the Vietnamese did not attack the U.S. Communist Vietcong invaded South Vietnam, and the U.S. came to the defense of the South Vietnamese.

Both wars were bloody battles, but we did what we were ordered to do – protect the people from being attacked. The main problem within both of these wars was not the decision to go to war, but was the "indecision" of the politicians to support the war, and lack of resolve to finish the mission.

The ironic thing is that Senator Kerry has become an exact replica of the type of politician that created the difficulties of the war he protested as a young soldier. He has become his own worst enemy – a politician who refuses to support our troops in battle, and give full authority to the military to fight an enemy that needs to be defeated. He has become a politician who protests a justified war against an evil enemy.

Vietnam should have taught us that when your Commander in Chief decides to send soldiers to war, give them the equipment they need, the authority to defeat the enemy, and the respect of your support. Nothing loses a battle quicker than the loss of fighting spirit within the soldiers. Nothing kills that spirit quicker than when soldiers feel that they do not have the support of their own countrymen, or that what they are fighting for is wrong. Senator Kerry should remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships!"

There comes a time when we must - - not could, or should, but must use force to ensure the safety of America. There is an excellent example of this in the movie "First Knight" with Sean Connery as King Arthur. When Arthur committed his army to protect the city of Leonesse, his weaker neighbor, the enemy of Camelot, Malagant, told him, "Your fine words are talking you out of peace, and into war!" King Arthur stood firm and said, "There is a peace that's only to be found on the other side of war. If that battle must come, then I will fight it." Every knight at the round table stood and said, "and I."

As to the "test" of when to go to war, I agree with a philosophy of lethal force used in law enforcement. I know a retired police officer who has a clear understanding of when it is appropriate to use deadly force in any situation. When a police officer has drawn his weapon on a suspect who presents a threat to others (spouse, children, bystanders, or officers), as my friend puts it, "deadly force is used when you can no longer allow that person to continue doing whatever it is they are doing for one second longer."

We could not afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue interfering with weapons inspections for one second longer. Saddam was displaying the same defiance toward the United Nations that Adolph Hitler did to its predecessor, the League of Nations, in 1933. Saddam was a genuine threat to world peace, and it was the right time for the Allied forces to enter Iraq and enforce the inspections.

Terrorism is real. The war on terrorism is a necessity. It is here and now – not later. Everyone must choose their side. You are either with us, or against us. You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. In my opinion, those who want to give the enemy time to regroup, train, and prepare for the next attack while playing negotiating games, are part of the problem. Saddam Hussein's regime was part of the problem. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do, in the right place, and at the right time.

Many songs convey the mood and spirit of the American People during difficult times. For World Wars I, and II, George M. Cohen offered the song "Over There" with the lyrics "So prepare, say a prayer. Send the word, send the word to beware. We'll be over, we're coming over, and we won't come back till it's over over there." That is the resolve that we had in the 1940s to stand behind our President and the Armed Forces.

After September 11, 2001, I can remember standing side by side with soldiers, veterans, and civilians alike, with tears streaming down our cheeks, singing the words to Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." I hope that each American listens to that song a few more times before election day. I get a little choked up every time I hear the words "And I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me, and I'd gladly stand up next to you, and defend her still today – cuz there ain't no doubt I love this land, God Bless the USA.

Senator Kerry has not shown the courage to send our troops to war against a clear, and present threat, the wisdom to act before we are attacked, nor the fortitude to see the mission through until the enemy is defeated. I suspect that if John Kerry was the Commander in Chief in 1941, we would not have gone to war with Germany because Hitler did not attack us on December 7, 1941. The evil leaders of Russia, Germany, and Japan were in a conspiracy to destroy America during WW II, and in 2003, terrorists were conspiring with Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and others to do the same.

We can deal with economic hardship. We can deal with a few strained friendships with our allies. What we can't deal with is being dead. The enemy has no intention of stopping until America is gone, and Americans are dead. The enemy does not follow the rules, and does not care who dies in the process. If they get their hands on nuclear weapons, the United States will be gone in the blink of an eye. Thus, we must terminate them, before they terminate us. We need a president, during this crucial time, who will not hesitate to make a decision which calls for quick action when faced with a deceptive, and evil enemy. Therefore, we need President George W. Bush to finish the job.

Respectfully,

James Jerome

(feel free to copy this letter and pass it on to others)"At a time of universal deceit-Telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell

Julie
17 Oct 04,, 14:12
I tend to look at a second-term re-election this way. A second-term President will do less than his first term because he has no need to impress any one since he can not be voted a third term. Bush will not be worried about his "record" but only satisfying his personal agenda to better situate him when he leaves office.

ChrisF202
17 Oct 04,, 14:20
I tend to look at a second-term re-election this way. A second-term President will do less than his first term because he has no need to impress any one since he can not be voted a third term. Bush will not be worried about his "record" but only satisfying his personal agenda to better situate him when he leaves office.
And just what is Bush's personal agenda? Taking over the world and controlling all the oil? Iraq had nothing to do with oil, we made a choice based on the best possible intelligence we had at the time.

Julie
17 Oct 04,, 16:21
And just what is Bush's personal agenda? Taking over the world and controlling all the oil? Iraq had nothing to do with oil, we made a choice based on the best possible intelligence we had at the time.

I know no more of Bush's future personal agenda, no more than I know why we invaded Iraq. As far as intelligence goes, if intelligence slipped through our hands for 9/11 to occur, why in the heck did we not question and/or second guess the intelligence on Iraq that we had at the time? At times, it takes our Government 2-3 years, and such quandry, over passing some bills and needed legislation, but it only takes 2-3 weeks to decide and position troops to invade a country?

Confed999
17 Oct 04,, 16:24
why in the heck did we not question and/or second guess the intelligence on Iraq that we had at the time?
Because there was so much of it, from all over the world, and Saddam wan't cooperating fully, as was required to verify the intel.

but it only takes 2-3 weeks to decide and position troops to invade a country?
Plus the decade before?

porsteamboy
17 Oct 04,, 17:22
And just what is Bush's personal agenda? Taking over the world and controlling all the oil? Iraq had nothing to do with oil, we made a choice based on the best possible intelligence we had at the time. Its amazing how the intelligence changes with the political windNo WMD (www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)

porsteamboy
17 Oct 04,, 17:36
Because there was so much of it, from all over the world, and Saddam wan't cooperating fully, as was required to verify the intel.

Plus the decade before? Check this outNo WMD (www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)

Confed999
17 Oct 04,, 17:45
Its amazing how the intelligence changes with the political windNo WMD (www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)
That link doesn't seem to work right now. Here it is from Google's chache: Cached Page (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:baFLYjp-PA4J:www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm++%22powell-no-wmd.htm%22&hl=en)
BTW, "no significant" doesn't mean none. He also said "And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control", he also said "We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there."
Even after the inspectors were allowed back in, the level of cooperation required to verify the intel was never given.

Fonnicker
17 Oct 04,, 18:12
That link doesn't seem to work right now. Here it is from Google's chache: Cached Page (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:baFLYjp-PA4J:www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm++%22powell-no-wmd.htm%22&hl=en)
BTW, "no significant" doesn't mean none. He also said "And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control", he also said "We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there."
Even after the inspectors were allowed back in, the level of cooperation required to verify the intel was never given.


Well, we know that Saddam did not have them. He made no claims otherwise, insisting that he didn't. Weapons inspectors were allowed in, weren't they. The found nothing. We went in and found nothing. Perhaps Saddam was daring the US to invade in order to make us look foolish when we confirmed that he had nothing. His military was obviously not strong enough to fight back. Localized insurgents put up a better fight than his "organized" military. It seems that Powell and Rice were correct. He didn't even have the conventional capabilities to pose a threat to his neighbors.

Confed999
17 Oct 04,, 18:27
He made no claims otherwise, insisting that he didn't.
He insisted he did have them up until after '96.

Weapons inspectors were allowed in, weren't they.
But were not given the cooperation required to do their job.

The found nothing.
Actually they found illegal missles, and well maintained, hidden, chemical ready artillery shells. They still haven't found the disposal site(s) for the weapons and precursors he was known to have, either.

He didn't even have the conventional capabilities to pose a threat to his neighbors.
Not conventional, not really invasion material, but, "He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat" - John Kerry. His conventional forces could have still posed a threat to his neighbors in a guerilla, or terrorist, war. (i.e. The Fedayeen Saddam)

Julie
17 Oct 04,, 18:29
Well, we know that Saddam did not have them. He made no claims otherwise, insisting that he didn't. Weapons inspectors were allowed in, weren't they. The found nothing. We went in and found nothing. Perhaps Saddam was daring the US to invade in order to make us look foolish when we confirmed that he had nothing. His military was obviously not strong enough to fight back. Localized insurgents put up a better fight than his "organized" military. It seems that Powell and Rice were correct. He didn't even have the conventional capabilities to pose a threat to his neighbors.

In other words, he was not a threat to the U.S. The U.S. was still engaging in the no-fly zone, and we had satellites monitoring Saddam's moves. Still, after all of that in place, we relied on a bucket of intel info that had many holes. Wow.

Confed999
17 Oct 04,, 19:03
In other words, he was not a threat to the U.S.
Beyond the posibility of giving weapons and/or training terrorists, he was not a significant threat. I don't remember anyone ever saying he could mount an invasion against the USA though.

ChrisF202
17 Oct 04,, 19:04
Even after the inspectors were allowed back in, the level of cooperation required to verify the intel was never given.

Saddam was not an idiot, do you really think anyone would leave WMD laying around for the UN to find? Saddam let them see only what he wanted them to see ... which was nothing. I still belive he had a small stockpile and had them sent out of Iraq before the inspectors showed up.

turnagainarm
17 Oct 04,, 19:33
Saddam was not an idiot, do you really think anyone would leave WMD laying around for the UN to find? Saddam let them see only what he wanted them to see ... which was nothing. I still belive he had a small stockpile and had them sent out of Iraq before the inspectors showed up.

Belief/speculation is not basis enough to invade a country, bomb them back to stone age, utterly destroy their infrastructure, and kill upto 30,000 of their civilians.

smilingassassin
17 Oct 04,, 21:00
Containment doesn't work, Saddam was hostile towards the U.S. and Britain, and their was considerable proof Saddam was not only skirting around sanctions but bribing France Germany and Russia to get them lifted, upon which time he would start up his WMD's program. You don't need the evidence with Saddam you only have to look at his past actions.

We can cry and whine and complain about the U.S. droping bombs, but I take exception to this when those on the left conveniently egnore the fact that Saddam did it for fun.

Confed999
17 Oct 04,, 21:19
Saddam did it for fun.
Sadly, I believe you are correct.

Fonnicker
17 Oct 04,, 21:25
Containment doesn't work, Saddam was hostile towards the U.S. and Britain, and their was considerable proof Saddam was not only skirting around sanctions but bribing France Germany and Russia to get them lifted, upon which time he would start up his WMD's program. You don't need the evidence with Saddam you only have to look at his past actions.

We can cry and whine and complain about the U.S. droping bombs, but I take exception to this when those on the left conveniently egnore the fact that Saddam did it for fun.


Can you provide any links refering to the proof that Saddam was bribing France, Germany, and Russia. It just seems convenient, them being the major voices against invading Iraq.

Confed999
17 Oct 04,, 21:32
Can you provide any links refering to the proof that Saddam was bribing France, Germany, and Russia. It just seems convenient, them being the major voices against invading Iraq.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html Special attention to Volume 1 "Regime Finance and Procurement"
Saddam was their investment, "puppet" if we were talking about the US. He was their link to ME oil.

James_Jerome
01 Nov 04,, 07:01
First of all, I want to say thanks to ChrisF202 for your comment about my original post here on this thread. It is, of course, my own personal viewpoint, but I do believe that many others agree.

To "barrowaj," I also thank you for your consideration of some of the points that I raised. I realize that not everyone will agree with my assessment of the decisions made by President Bush, but that is one of the options we have as Americans - to freely express our opinions.

I will disagree with your criticism of the points you chose. As for your attempt to correct the "wrong war" quote, I agree that I simplified it, but not "oversimplified" as you stated. Many people get misled by these statements, thus I do not believe it could be "oversimplified." It must be analyzed for it's implied meaning and definition in the English language.

You said, "What 'wrong war' means, is that if we had done as we should, and continued inspections, we would have discovered that Iraq did not in fact have WMD."

Firstly, your statement assumes that it is a "fact" that there were no WMD. I do not believe that the lack of finding any at this stage constitutes a "fact" that they are not still hidden there, or that the WMD was not moved out prior to the invaision. No one has proven that to be a "fact."

Secondly, I must correct your definition. You are saying "wrong war" means we should have waited - that's an issue of time as in Kerry's "wrong time" comment. Then you say "we would have discovered that Iraq did not in fact have WMD." That is implying that Senator Kerry believed the outcome of waiting would have proved that there were no weapons, thus we would not have had to go to war.

Therefore, my definition stands. "Wrong war" is not about time or waiting for inspections. Believing that the inspectors would have proven there were no WMD, means that knowledge had to exist prior to going in and finding out. Since Saddam was not letting the inspectors do their job, you either had to take Saddam for his word (not what I would do), or you had to go in and prove it one way or the other. "Wrong war" means you should not have invaded - ever (period).

You also said that my statement that Saddam supported Al Qaeda cells in Iraq is "completely untrue." I am not concerned with what various agencies have concluded as to what they can not prove, or that "no connections" can be verified. I do not believe that Saddam had direct connection with Osama Bin Ladden, but I do believe that enough officials from Al Qaeda, and who knows how many individual terrorists, have benefited from sanctuary in Iraq.

Saddam did not make it a habbit of restricting their movement, communications, training, or obtaining weapons. I do not believe that these people are idiots. We are not likely to find direct evidence of their 2nd or 3rd party conversations in support of killing Americans, and attacking and destroying American targets. In my opinion, they are all guilty by association, even accomplices after the fact. In my view, statements like "no evidence can be found" simply means they haven't found it yet.

Finally, your comments on my statement that President Bush went to war on a "God Faith Basis" tells me that you do not understand this phrase. It is used (particularly in law) to declare a persons intentions for taking a certain action for which they may have been misled by false information, or might realize that they did not have all of the facts, but felt it was necessary to proceed in the interim.

You said, "Well, it is clear that only an idiot would go to war on a good faith basis." Are you implying the opposite - that a person should go to war on a "bad faith basis?" If you are suggesting that a person should not go to war if the only thing the have is a "good faith basis," then perhaps I would agree. However, I did not suggest that the only thing Presiden Bush had was a good faith basis. He had many other reasons, including the fact that Saddam had shown the intent to restart his WMD program, and that we had no way of knowing if he did without either going in, or waiting until he produced and used, or distributed WMD. That's what "good faith basis" means - he launched the invasion for good reasons - to find out if Saddam had restarted his weapons program, and in the face of Sadam's defiance. The answer does not nulify the need to find out.

You also said, "When you are going to make a decision that will kill thousands of people, then you better have hard evidence, not just a hunch." For this, I will agree with you. Fortunately, President Bush did have hard evidence. He had past conduct of Saddam with WMD, with invading Kuwait, with violating the resolution, interfering with inspections, and defying the UN. These facts are not in dispute, and constitute sufficient cause to remove Saddam and his regime from power.

It is not wise to treat people like Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein with kid gloves. If you wait until they gain the power to do the damage that they clearly intend to do, then you will be paying the consequences to an even greater degree. It is tragic that wars claim the lives of innocent people, and those who live in countries controlled by dictators tend to suffer either way. However, unless we take down these evil regimes, many more thousands will suffer for years to come, and most likely many more millions of Americans will die if we do not act. Going to war for the right cause, can save lives in the long run.

To Prodigal Son - If you are referring to my post with your "right-wing ideology masquerading a objective analysis" comment, I can only say that it is not a masquerade. I am not a "right-wing" indidual, but I do believe in some views that agree with people in both parties. In this particular issue, I happen to believe in aggressive action against those who blatantly defy international efforts to secure the peace, and protect everyone from terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. By definition, my post was an "objective analysis." It was my analysis - my own opinion, in my own words, from my perspective. It was a fair statement of observable phenomena presented factually. These are the facts that I feel are important for deciding the election - disagree if you wish, but it does not change the facts.

To Julie - in one of your posts, you said, "A second-term President will do less than his first term." I disagre, because it generally takes a President more than four years to accomplish anything (listen to the time table for any candidate running for office). By the time a president has turned things around from the previous administration, it is usually in their second term before positive changes begin to take effect. When we change political parties every four years, we defeat the chances of either party from doing any good.

Furthermore, you claimed that Bush will not be worried about his "record." I contend that any president in their second term is concerned about the legacy they leave behind in the history books. No president wants to go down in history as having drifted off and failed the American people. Look at the adversities that President Bush has had to overcome in his first four years - a recession, an attack on 9-11, the response in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. What could he have accomplished other than to improve our national security, and keep us from going from recession to depression. I believe President Bush will do an even better job in his second term.

Another comment you made in one post about Saddam Hussein was "In other words, he was not a threat to the U.S. ..." I certainly hope all Americans see through the smoke screen that Saddam was using to conceal his actions. It wasn't a very thick smoke either. He was most certainly a threat to the U.S. Every terrorist who could feel free to live in Iraq without fear of prosecution, or punnishment, would be free to live and kill another day. Saddam, himself, was the biggest weapon of mass destruction. He had clearly stated his intentions to kill Americans, and that he would strike America the first chance he got.

You also have to realize that the vast amount of weapons that the inspectors had locked down in Iraq, could easily have been removed by Saddam any time he wanted, if he decided to attack his neighbors, or give them to terrorists to us against the U.S. In any event, the most important threat was his desire to restart a "Weapons Program." I hope everyone understands what this means. It does not mean that you will find nuclear weapons when you go into Iraq. It means that he was attempting to acquire the materials, and to manufacture these weapons secretly. Why do you think he was seeking nuclear capability if he was not going to us it? I do not believe he wanted to be the next super power "peace keeper" in the Middle East - perhaps the next ruler of the world. What kind of a peaceful leader greets his followers with a riffle in his hand, shooting off rounds in the air?

To all Americans - please support a free and safe America. Vote for George Bush on November 2nd.

Thank you
James Jerome
A free and independant American citizen.

Donnie
01 Nov 04,, 17:54
after all of that in place, we relied on a bucket of intel info that had many holes. Wow.

yet bush is critisized for not acting on a bucket of intel full of holes that was gathered prior to 9/11.

its a no win situation.

Julie
01 Nov 04,, 19:07
To Julie - in one of your posts, you said, "A second-term President will do less than his first term." I disagre, because it generally takes a President more than four years to accomplish anything (listen to the time table for any candidate running for office). By the time a president has turned things around from the previous administration, it is usually in their second term before positive changes begin to take effect. When we change political parties every four years, we defeat the chances of either party from doing any good.. And it didn't take Bush 2 years to spend the surplus of money and allies, that the Clinton Administration had left the next administration to work with.



Furthermore, you claimed that Bush will not be worried about his "record." I contend that any president in their second term is concerned about the legacy they leave behind in the history books. No president wants to go down in history as having drifted off and failed the American people. Look at the adversities that President Bush has had to overcome in his first four years - a recession, an attack on 9-11, the response in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. What could he have accomplished other than to improve our national security, and keep us from going from recession to depression. I believe President Bush will do an even better job in his second term. I didn't see the US falling into a recession until after Bush assumed office. According to Osama's latest statement, the long-planned US attack was set into motion when the son of Bush, Sr. took office, and it was made plain that Bush Sr., as well as his sons, are not well-liked because of their Saudi connection. Hypothetically speaking, but just maybe the attack would not have occurred had Bush not taken office.


Another comment you made in one post about Saddam Hussein was "In other words, he was not a threat to the U.S. ..." I certainly hope all Americans see through the smoke screen that Saddam was using to conceal his actions. It wasn't a very thick smoke either. He was most certainly a threat to the U.S. Every terrorist who could feel free to live in Iraq without fear of prosecution, or punnishment, would be free to live and kill another day. Saddam, himself, was the biggest weapon of mass destruction. He had clearly stated his intentions to kill Americans, and that he would strike America the first chance he got... Saddam was under constant surveillance, and the no-fly zones rendered Saddam unmaneuverable, except his under the table deals. There were other threats greater at the time Iraq was invaded, i.e. North Korea and Iran, oh, and let's not forget some finishing touches on Afghanistan, i.e. Osama.


You also have to realize that the vast amount of weapons that the inspectors had locked down in Iraq, could easily have been removed by Saddam any time he wanted, if he decided to attack his neighbors, or give them to terrorists to us against the U.S. In any event, the most important threat was his desire to restart a "Weapons Program." Then Scott Peterson should have been arrested before Christmas Eve, then maybe his wife would be alive today, since he MIGHT have had the motive and been planning to kill her. Otherwise he is innocent until solid evidence prove otherwise.

Donnie
01 Nov 04,, 20:22
Then Scott Peterson should have been arrested before Christmas Eve, then maybe his wife would be alive today, since he MIGHT have had the motive and been planning to kill her. Otherwise he is innocent until solid evidence prove otherwise.

one difference, sadam was already proven guilty, he made a plea bargain, and was put on parole, then didnt live up to his end of the agreement, breaking parole. this was not a seperate trial, but a continuation of the first one in 1991.

your analogy doesnt fit.

Confed999
02 Nov 04,, 00:04
There were other threats greater at the time Iraq was invaded, i.e. North Korea and Iran
It's allways interesting when the war is evil crowd argues for more, or different, war.

Donnie
02 Nov 04,, 01:58
It's allways interesting when the war is evil crowd argues for more, or different, war.

so true, like they would really be OK with us going to war with n. korea, or iran.

smilingassassin
02 Nov 04,, 07:18
"However, the criticism of Kerrys "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" remark is oversimplified."

I beg to differ, his statement oversimplifys the enemy's cause, it basically states that the U.S. is in the wrong and therefor by fighting the Americans in Iraq the terrorists are in the right.

smilingassassin
02 Nov 04,, 07:29
"There were other threats greater at the time Iraq was invaded, i.e. North Korea and Iran"

Emigine a senario where France, Germany, Russia and the UN acctually backed the invasion of Iraq. Sufficient troops would be freed to put pressure on Iran, and Iraq's suffering would be less prolonged.

Support for the war or not, you cannot egnore the tactical advantage of having a free and democratic Iraq smack dab in the middle of the ME, with borders on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Ghostbuster
02 Nov 04,, 08:01
Support for the war or not, you cannot egnore the tactical advantage of having a free and democratic Iraq smack dab in the middle of the ME, with borders on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
A "free and democratic" Iraq is going to be an Iranian style democracy since Shias are majority in Iraq. Saddam was secular, he was able to keep the Islamists in check. Now that Iraq has "freedom and democracy", Islamists would be able to form an "Islamic Republic of Iraq", something the Bush Administration probably a did not anticpiate. It is a big pandora box and has the potential of unleashing a Shia uprising in other ME states thus further destabilizing ME.

smilingassassin
02 Nov 04,, 08:29
A "free and democratic" Iraq is going to be an Iranian style democracy since Shias are majority in Iraq. Saddam was secular, he was able to keep the Islamists in check. Now that Iraq has "freedom and democracy", Islamists would be able to form an "Islamic Republic of Iraq", something the Bush Administration probably a did not anticpiate. It is a big pandora box and has the potential of unleashing a Shia uprising in other ME states thus further destabilizing ME.

Pure speculation at this point. Just because they are Shia dosn't mean they will follow Iran's lead.

Ghostbuster
02 Nov 04,, 12:10
Pure speculation at this point. Just because they are Shia dosn't mean they will follow Iran's lead.
The shia muslims of the world traditionally look towards Iran, and the Sunnis look towards Saudi Arabia. The most revered cleric in Iraq is Ayatulluah Sistani, who himself is an Iranian. Ayatullah Sistani will have a major say in the future Shia dominated Iraqi politics, without his support no politician will win election in the Shia majority area.

Ray
02 Nov 04,, 18:13
one difference, sadam was already proven guilty, he made a plea bargain, and was put on parole, then didnt live up to his end of the agreement, breaking parole. this was not a seperate trial, but a continuation of the first one in 1991.

your analogy doesnt fit.

While I support the 'war on terror' nad the US but I find certain issues are contradictory and I can't wear blinkers about it.

Now, if the US is beyond the International Court of Justice (ICJ), then it has no right to try anyone including Milosevic since they can also claim that they are beyond the pale of the International Court of Justice! Therefore, there is no justification for the US or anyone to gloat that they have a 'fugitive from justice'.

As far as the US system of justice, prima facie the partisan angle of the US Courts are fabled! Ask Gore!

And after this election, ask Bush and Kerry!

Therefore, this moral high horse appears to me to be pretty much of bunk.

If the US is beyond the realm of international justice, who the Dickens are they do dole out justice?

Fonnicker
02 Nov 04,, 18:17
While I support the 'war on terror' nad the US but I find certain issues are contradictory and I can't wear blinkers about it.

Now, if the US is beyond the International Court of Justice (ICJ), then it has no right to try anyone including Milosevic since they can also claim that they are beyond the pale of the International Court of Justice! Therefore, there is no justification for the US or anyone to gloat that they have a 'fugitive from justice'.

As far as the US system of justice, prima facie the partisan angle of the US Courts are fabled! Ask Gore!

And after this election, ask Bush and Kerry!

Therefore, this moral high horse appears to me to be pretty much of bunk.

If the US is beyond the realm of international justice, who the Dickens are they do dole out justice?


Well said.

smilingassassin
02 Nov 04,, 18:49
When International law is writen by your enemy's it becomes a problem.

Fonnicker
02 Nov 04,, 19:14
When International law is writen by your enemy's it becomes a problem.


Which of our enemies wrote the laws governing war crimes and accountability?

Ghostbuster
02 Nov 04,, 19:19
When International law is writen by your enemy's it becomes a problem.
That's interesting. Which enemies exactly you are talking about? Do you mean all those who wrote the international law are enemies of USA or you have specific names you can name?

Ray
02 Nov 04,, 19:28
International law written by ENEMIES?

Which world do you live in?

Pal, the UN is also a creation of the US.

Can the world sneeze with out the US having a cold?

It is a patriotic feeling to say " My country right or wrong' but it is greater to say 'My contry is always RIGHT sand screw you'.

Say it with all your heart, but don't befuddle with 'political correectness' and deficit in logic.

Confed999
03 Nov 04,, 00:58
It is a patriotic feeling to say " My country right or wrong' but it is greater to say 'My contry is always RIGHT sand screw you'.
smilingassassin isn't American, he's Canadian...

Confed999
03 Nov 04,, 01:16
As far as the US system of justice, prima facie the partisan angle of the US Courts are fabled! Ask Gore!
The courts ruled that the states are allowed to have their own election rules, just as it should be. The same courts have struck down many parts of the Patriot Act, for example, so they aren't as partisan as some believe.

Ray
03 Nov 04,, 04:31
Confed,

I was expecting something from you and it came.

But as usual it was very gently put. I know how you feel and appreciate that.

However, Patriot Act (I am not debating the rights and wrongs) is for the safety of ALL of the USA. Now, if the States have the right to create loopholes, imagine the hassle of those States to which the terrorists can sneak in because of lax laws of a neighbouring State.

Though the US Election is decided by the Electoral College and thus it appears within the jurisdiction of the State to decided how it is to be conducted, but in my opinion, if it is to select the US President, then maybe a central type of law and juridisdiction maybe a more fair way to ensure that there is level playing field for all voters no matter which state the voter is in.

In my opinion, if something affects the WHOLE country then there should be the Federal Law, but if it pertains to a State, it should be a State law.

That of course is my opinion.

smilingassassin
03 Nov 04,, 05:54
International law written by ENEMIES?

Which world do you live in?

Pal, the UN is also a creation of the US.

Can the world sneeze with out the US having a cold?

It is a patriotic feeling to say " My country right or wrong' but it is greater to say 'My contry is always RIGHT sand screw you'.

Say it with all your heart, but don't befuddle with 'political correectness' and deficit in logic.

When Libya heads a human rights commision you know things are screwed. The U.S. may have had a large hand in creating the UN but others have managed to take the UN and transform it into a pile of crap that does nothing, just ask the Sudanese.

Fonnicker
03 Nov 04,, 06:14
When Libya heads a human rights commision you know things are screwed. The U.S. may have had a large hand in creating the UN but others have managed to take the UN and transform it into a pile of crap that does nothing, just ask the Sudanese.


Hey, take it easy on Lybia! Remember, your favorite politician calls them an ally on the war on terror! I guess when the world is overwhelmingly against you, you take whatever support you can get, right?

smilingassassin
03 Nov 04,, 06:58
I don't care if the Pope called them an ally in the war on terrorism you cannot deny the irony of them running the human rights commision.

However I do not recall Bush ever saying Libya was an "ally", he did however say they were co-operating.

Ray
03 Nov 04,, 07:14
When Libya heads a human rights commision you know things are screwed. The U.S. may have had a large hand in creating the UN but others have managed to take the UN and transform it into a pile of crap that does nothing, just ask the Sudanese.

When Libya heads, the others have not lost therir heads. It is democracy. The votes count.

When the US heads the UN (technically), she can't get away. What about that?

Does it mean that the US runs the UN?

Get logical.

OK Libya is a pariah. How come it is now every western country's love bird now?

smilingassassin
03 Nov 04,, 07:55
When Libya heads, the others have not lost therir heads. It is democracy. The votes count.

When the US heads the UN (technically), she can't get away. What about that?

Does it mean that the US runs the UN?

Get logical.

OK Libya is a pariah. How come it is now every western country's love bird now?

I wasn't aware that it was a love bird to the west. I certainly wouldn't consider it one. I see Libya as a nation that has seen the writing on the wall and taken the route that best serves its own swecurity.

Ray
03 Nov 04,, 14:18
That would be true, if Libya consituted the same all alone.

Donnie
03 Nov 04,, 14:56
Therefore, this moral high horse appears to me to be pretty much of bunk.


you know this was just an oversimplified response to a ridiculouse analogy, i have always felt the US should help iraq for humanitarian reasons, and that WMD was just a way of giving countries an out to vote thier concious, since the UN doesnt work well when voting for humanitarian reasons, so this truly isnt my argument. just pointing out how this has nothing to do with Scott Peterson, if you think it does, id like to see how.

smilingassassin
03 Nov 04,, 18:54
The Humanitarian issue is certainly effecting the Sudan issue isn't it? If it doesn't work there what makes you think it would work in Iraq?

Donnie
03 Nov 04,, 19:41
The Humanitarian issue is certainly effecting the Sudan issue isn't it? If it doesn't work there what makes you think it would work in Iraq?

thats exactly my point, the UN doesnt vote to go to war for humanitarian reasons, so you have to come up with something else, its not working in the sudan, and it wouldnt have worked for iraq, thats why i didnt care what the president said to get us there, as long as we got there.

Ray
03 Nov 04,, 19:50
Donnie Maharani,

Just get real.

In Sudan it has not worked. Fine.

In Iraq, it wouln't work. Fine.

Just check the money spent in Iraq and the Sudan.

Don't just talk for the sake of talking.

Stop being childish.

Let the unwashed Arabs kill the darkies, Ok, true they have oil, but by Jove the *****s are sitting on it and they can kick the hell out of us.

So, let them just screw themselves.

Ray
03 Nov 04,, 19:54
When Libya heads a human rights commision you know things are screwed. The U.S. may have had a large hand in creating the UN but others have managed to take the UN and transform it into a pile of crap that does nothing, just ask the Sudanese.

Rather kind of the US to allow other to screw the UN.

Why didn;t they apply the same for Iraq, rather than be in the morass they are in?

Donnie
03 Nov 04,, 20:44
Donnie Maharani,

Just get real.

In Sudan it has not worked. Fine.

In Iraq, it wouln't work. Fine.

Just check the money spent in Iraq and the Sudan.

Don't just talk for the sake of talking.

Stop being childish.

i am real, i dont think i understand you ray, i truly believe that the US as well as the world had a duty to intervene in iraq, just as i feel they should have with liberia, sudan, ect. ect.

why is this being childish?

Confed999
04 Nov 04,, 01:08
However, Patriot Act (I am not debating the rights and wrongs) is for the safety of ALL of the USA.
That is true, but it must still conform to our Constitution. The parts that do not, must be struck down without regard for safety. Here, liberty is supposed to rule over security.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Now, if the States have the right to create loopholes, imagine the hassle of those States to which the terrorists can sneak in because of lax laws of a neighbouring State.
The states can't change federal law, but they may challenge it. If it is found to be against the Constitution, it is removed, otherwise it stands.

Though the US Election is decided by the Electoral College and thus it appears within the jurisdiction of the State to decided how it is to be conducted
That is correct. The reason is that, what works in one place, will not work in another. The states still must stay within the limited regulations placed by the constitution and federal law. That said, the state may place any other time limits and voting restrictions they believe are required. When the Supreme Court ruled on the previous election they ruled that Florida's rules are Constitutional, and within the realms of federal law.

maybe a more fair way to ensure that there is level playing field for all voters no matter which state the voter is in.
That is the reason for the Electoral College. In a close race, it makes every state count. It combines the power of all of a state's voters into a single voice.

In my opinion, if something affects the WHOLE country then there should be the Federal Law, but if it pertains to a State, it should be a State law.
State and local governments are part of the checks and balances, they keep the federal government more honest with their scrutiny.

Confed999
04 Nov 04,, 01:09
i truly believe that the US as well as the world had a duty to intervene in iraq, just as i feel they should have with liberia, sudan, ect. ect.
Amen...

smilingassassin
04 Nov 04,, 05:31
Donnie Maharani,

Just get real.

In Sudan it has not worked. Fine.

In Iraq, it wouln't work. Fine.

Just check the money spent in Iraq and the Sudan.

Don't just talk for the sake of talking.

Stop being childish.

Let the unwashed Arabs kill the darkies, Ok, true they have oil, but by Jove the *****s are sitting on it and they can kick the hell out of us.

So, let them just screw themselves.

Have we ever been to war with the Sudan? Have they violated ceice fire agreements for 12 years in addition to UN resolutions? Is France or Germany acting in the Sudan? This isn't talk just for the sake of talking, this isn't childish, these are REAL issues. Personally I see a skewed morality when it comes to Iraq. We look for excuses as to why WE shouldn't be there and yet saddam was such an evil tyrant and had to go. Answer me this, how would you expect the German people to over throw Hitler in 1939? How would you expect the Iraqi's to do it?

Fonnicker
04 Nov 04,, 05:41
Have we ever been to war with the Sudan? Have they violated ceice fire agreements for 12 years in addition to UN resolutions? Is France or Germany acting in the Sudan? This isn't talk just for the sake of talking, this isn't childish, these are REAL issues. Personally I see a skewed morality when it comes to Iraq. We look for excuses as to why WE shouldn't be there and yet saddam was such an evil tyrant and had to go. Answer me this, how would you expect the German people to over throw Hitler in 1939? How would you expect the Iraqi's to do it?


I still believe that the primary issue is timing when balanced with an immediate threat. No one dissagrees with the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to go. Personally, I feel it was a rush job that could have waited at least until we had made some ground on the original war on terror and we could garnish some world support for our actions.

smilingassassin
04 Nov 04,, 07:56
I still believe that the primary issue is timing when balanced with an immediate threat. No one dissagrees with the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to go. Personally, I feel it was a rush job that could have waited at least until we had made some ground on the original war on terror and we could garnish some world support for our actions.

The only reason we can call it a rush job is the fact that WMD's have not been found in significant quanity's yet. All the pre war intelligence (from a number of nations) supported the opinion that Saddam had em, so I don't fault bush for acting Quickly. I am convinced that had the U.S. been able to set up a sizable Northern front, we would have netted significant amounts of WMD's. Humanitarily we were not too late, unfortunately the lack of a UN, French and German presence makes that fact moot as international terrorists flock to iraq to try and destabalize the country and make American citizens think that Iraq is un-winable.

If you think Iraq is bloody and un-winable what on earth do you think Iran would be like?!

Julie
04 Nov 04,, 14:42
If you think Iraq is bloody and un-winable what on earth do you think Iran would be like?!

What is the definition of "un-winable?" Meaning reaching our desired objective? Was that done in Afghanistan before going to Iraq? And if not, what is to say that we will not invade Iran before our desired objective is met in Iraq? Iran is standing its ground on the enrichment of it's uranium, while Bush is standing his ground that the US will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. At what point will the US allow Iran to continue, without using force? Will the US wait for the UN procedural steps with Iran?

Fonnicker
04 Nov 04,, 16:01
What is the definition of "un-winable?" Meaning reaching our desired objective? Was that done in Afghanistan before going to Iraq? And if not, what is to say that we will not invade Iran before our desired objective is met in Iraq? Iran is standing its ground on the enrichment of it's uranium, while Bush is standing his ground that the US will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. At what point will the US allow Iran to continue, without using force? Will the US wait for the UN procedural steps with Iran?


I can't see how we cannot jump right in. If we don't, then what we did in Iraq was hypocritical. I just wish someone would at least acknowledge the fact that the war in Iraq was ill-timed. It very well could have waited until more immediate concerns were dealt with.

Donnie
04 Nov 04,, 18:10
No one dissagrees with the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to go.

but thats the problem, there are people who dont believe that.

Ray
04 Nov 04,, 18:13
but thats the problem, there are people who dont believe that.

This is the typical innane nonsense to justify a stupidity.

Nobody disagrees that Saddam is a tryrant.

However, there be bigger blasted tyrants who require more attention than than fool Saddam. Remember the swinish Saudi Kings?

Get them first.

smilingassassin
04 Nov 04,, 18:42
There are plenty of Tyrants to take on, one at a time Iraq has great strategical value for its location, right in the middle of a hornets nest.

Fonnicker
04 Nov 04,, 19:00
So, that why we went in! It wasn't Saddam at all, it was military strategy. I feel much better now.

Donnie
04 Nov 04,, 19:18
Nobody disagrees that Saddam is a tryrant.

it was the "needs to go" part i was talking about

James_Jerome
05 Nov 04,, 08:15
It amazes me to see how many people apparently think that they are suddenly military experts. These boards must be filled with three and four star Generals. Everyone is second guessing the strategy of the war! I was in the in the military many years ago, and I can tell you from first-hand experience - the majority of the soldiers, who fight the battles, are trained to do a specific job, but most of them couldn't make a strategic military decision to save their life.

As a field artillery surveyor, I was involved in tank battalions, forward observers, and fire direction control (FDC). Then, I entered the R.O.T.C program and was placed in a Lieutenant's position over a communications platoon. I learned the difference between a soldier that completes the mission, and an officer that decides what the mission will be.

I see alot of individuals here questioning why the U.S. invaded Iraq instead of Iran, or North Korea. So many people are trying to challenge the logic of taking down Saddam and his regime "when" we did. Why not wait? Well, I will tell you absolutely, without a doubt, that the general public will never know all of the reasons why the "real" military strategic command, the Generals on the ground with years of combat experience, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised the President the way the did.

It is not pertinent that some intelligence was false, the strategy was carefully planned, and the justification for forcing Saddam to permit unfettered inspections was legitimate. It would not have been wise to wait and see if Saddam was violating the restrictions placed on him. He had no authority to resist, and we had every right to find out as soon as we could.

I hesitate to even allude to the indepth, undercover agents, spies, and counter-spies that pass information, through secret channels, to the pentagon, of which only a hand-full of people, including the President, are privy. These bits of information can't even be de-classified because it would reveal the sources, and place their lives in danger. Congress can't even be trusted not to leak these facts, and we certainly can't explain it to the public at large!

Most of these terrorist organizations are next to impossible to infiltrate, but if we did, we certainly wouldn't advertise the fact, or they would scrutinize every questionable member even more. Many undercover operatives don't even live long enough to make it inside one of these organizations, so when one does, we certainly don't want to blow his cover.

If you "armchair generals" think that, without even seeing the classified documents that cross the President's desk, you can decide better which targets to strike, when, and why, then you must be psychic, as well as military geniuses! - lol - I realize that everyone is going to have their opinion about these things, but please - realize how uninformed and uneducated your decisions are.

With respect
James Jerome
U.S. citizen, patriot.

Julie
05 Nov 04,, 17:08
It amazes me to see how many people apparently think that they are suddenly military experts. These boards must be filled with three and four star Generals. Everyone is second guessing the strategy of the war!

That is what "forums" are for, debating, arguing, and second-guessing. This particular thread concerns "Why Bush should be elected," and his decision making is the concern, and the right of, people's opinions to be discussed here, no matter how experienced, or unexperienced they may be.


If you "armchair generals" think that, without even seeing the classified documents that cross the President's desk, you can decide better which targets to strike, when, and why, then you must be psychic, as well as military geniuses! - lol - I realize that everyone is going to have their opinion about these things, but please - realize how uninformed and uneducated your decisions are.

I think everyone here understands that their posted opinions are not going to be used for any real-life military decision-making, so don't get your panties in a wad. :biggrin:

Ghostbuster
05 Nov 04,, 17:46
it was the "needs to go" part i was talking about
It does not always work that way. Look at the liberals, they wanted Bush gone, heck pretty much the whole world (except for Israel) wanted Bush gone, but he was able to scrounge enough bible thumpers/gun-owners/gay-bashers votes in the keystate of Ohio and couple of million more nationally, and now he is back in their face for 4 more years!
Now the liberals and the rest of the world has to live with Bush for 4 more years, you see what I mean? That's a lot of people right here in US and the rest of the world.

Donnie
05 Nov 04,, 18:03
It does not always work that way. Look at the liberals, they wanted Bush gone, heck pretty much the whole world (except for Israel) wanted Bush gone, but he was able to scrounge enough bible thumpers/gun-owners/gay-bashers votes in the keystate of Ohio and couple of million more nationally, and now he is back in their face for 4 more years!
Now the liberals and the rest of the world has to live with Bush for 4 more years, you see what I mean? That's a lot of people right here in US and the rest of the world.

please dont equate bush with sadam, its a no starter.

dont get me wrong ghost, im not a religous bible thumper, or gun owner, or gay basher. its not the right that made those things the issue, it was the lefts defence of them that made them lose. instead of focusing on the economy, education, and the deficit, they focused on stem cell, gay rights and abortion.

the old democrats didnt fight for special interest, that was always the job of the right, the right used to be the one that looked goofy fighting for gun finatics, now its the dems that look goofy fighting for gay marriage. wrong issue at the wrong time.

Ghostbuster
05 Nov 04,, 18:23
The only reason we can call it a rush job is the fact that WMD's have not been found in significant quanity's yet. All the pre war intelligence (from a number of nations) supported the opinion that Saddam had em, so I don't fault bush for acting Quickly. I am convinced that had the U.S. been able to set up a sizable Northern front, we would have netted significant amounts of WMD's. Humanitarily we were not too late, unfortunately the lack of a UN, French and German presence makes that fact moot as international terrorists flock to iraq to try and destabalize the country and make American citizens think that Iraq is un-winable.

If you think Iraq is bloody and un-winable what on earth do you think Iran would be like?!
The pre war British intelligence was c_rap. Bush had to retract his statement about Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Source for that was British intelligence! I don't remember intelligence from any other nation being mentioned. Can you provide us some links that says that French or German intelligence talked about presence of WMD in Iraq? Israeli and Kuwaiti intelligence does not count, they had a motive in Saddam being removed. People like Hans Blix who were in a position to know the ground reality in fact were highly skeptical of any such claim and had expressed their opinion.

I am somewhat skeptical about CIA intelliegence being faulty. CIA intelligence was what it was, but there were number of caveats/qualifiers in the reports as some CIA operatives/officials (now ex) as well as State Dept. officials (now ex) who were involved in preparing those reports have claimed. Bush Administration ignored all those caveats/qualifiers in the reports, and deliberately misrepresented intelligence to drum up support for the war.

That has turned out to be the truth.

Iraq war was never about WMD. For Bush junior it was about taking revenge for the assasination attempt on his father Bush senior, as well as part of his re-election strategy. Bush in the first few months of his presidency had realized that unless he gave a huge tax cut to the rich (and a nominal one to the rest), as well as do something big like attack Iraq, he was not going to win a second term. Anybody who knows about the books written by ex commerce secretary O'Neil or Bob Woodword, knows that Bush was talking about invading Iraq long time before 9/11. Then 9/11 happened.

smilingassassin
05 Nov 04,, 18:37
I can't see how we cannot jump right in. If we don't, then what we did in Iraq was hypocritical. I just wish someone would at least acknowledge the fact that the war in Iraq was ill-timed. It very well could have waited until more immediate concerns were dealt with.

Iran has not been strangled by sanctions. Afganistan was not a serious drain on resorces, Iraq is. Now you expect the U.S. to move on Iran? You say we didn't finnish what we started in Afganistan before moving on Iraq and now you want to leave TWO nations with unfinished buisiness?! Given the window of opertunity and the placement of the troops in Kuwait, which cannot remain there indefinately your forced with either invading or backing down and letting Saddam retain power. Think we are wasting money now? how about parking a huge army in Kuwait for months durring the summer doing nothing, if thats your plan I'm thankfull it went down the way it did.

"The pre war British intelligence was c_rap. Bush had to retract his statement about Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Source for that was British intelligence! I don't remember intelligence from any other nation being mentioned."

France and Russia also had the same intell, your memory is selective.

"Bush Administration ignored all those caveats/qualifiers in the reports, and deliberately misrepresented intelligence to drum up support for the war."

Tennant claimed it was "a slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD's, the head of the CIA appointed by Clinton, not Bush.

"Anybody who knows about the books written by ex commerce secretary O'Neil or Bob Woodword, knows that Bush was talking about invading Iraq long time before 9/11. Then 9/11 happened."

...I'm almost 100% cetain other presidents have also talked about invading Iraq, so talking about and doing are two different things. The key phrase here is "after 9/11".

Ghostbuster
05 Nov 04,, 19:55
please dont equate bush with sadam, its a no starter.

dont get me wrong ghost, im not a religous bible thumper, or gun owner, or gay basher. its not the right that made those things the issue, it was the lefts defence of them that made them lose. instead of focusing on the economy, education, and the deficit, they focused on stem cell, gay rights and abortion.

the old democrats didnt fight for special interest, that was always the job of the right, the right used to be the one that looked goofy fighting for gun finatics, now its the dems that look goofy fighting for gay marriage. wrong issue at the wrong time.
I was not equating Bush with Saddam, I was merely stating that roughly 150 million Americans did not approve of Bush and wanted him gone and about 6 billion people outside US also did not like Bush and wanted him gone, but they would have to live with Bush now for 4 more years.

I have to somewhat disagree with you, left only started defending all these issues when they came under pressure from right after Bush got elected/selected in 2000.

The ideology of the left is very simple, it is pro-choice. It believes in woman's right to choose, it does not see a problem with stem cell research with material which are to be otherwise discarded anyway, and it believes that gays like anybody else have rights of civil union and under that they should be able to visit their partners in hospitals, inherit their partners property and have similar rights. Why does right-wing have problem with that? Left is not imposing these values on them, they are free to live their lifestyle and read their bible. Nobody is stopping them from reading bible. If they don't approve of stem cell research, that is fine, just don't partake in the effort, or be a benificiary at the fructification of research, but why stop the left from doing research? If they do not approve of gay "marriage" (marriage is just a word substitute it with any other word may be call it a civil union), that is fine too, nobody will force them to get married to a gay person, but why deny the gays some preliminary rights?

The problem with the right is that it wants to impose its own world view on those who do not agree with it. Rigt wing wants to roll back woman's right to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, not allow gay couples the rights and privileges under a civil union, the rights accorded to striaght married couples, and wants to rollback the seperation between church and state.


Right wing is about curtailing rights and limiting freedom, the left is about choice and the freedom which comes with choice, do you see the difference?

Ghostbuster
05 Nov 04,, 20:15
France and Russia also had the same intell, your memory is selective.
I don't remeber France intelligence saying that Saddam had WMD, if you have a link please do post it.
I do remember Russian intelligence saying that US and Saddam had a secret pact before the invasion of Iraq, I am sure you want me to believe that too!



Tennant claimed it was "a slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD's, the head of the CIA appointed by Clinton, not Bush.
Tenet was just a bureaucrat, he was not a CIA or State Dept. analyst. Tenet did not prepare those intelligence reports, the CIA and State Dept. Analysts did, and it was them who claimed that Bush Administration misrepresented the intelligence in their quest to drum up support for war.
Tenet ended up telling them what they wanted to hear not what was the reality and they conveniently ignored the caveats/qualiers in the intelligence reports.



...I'm almost 100% cetain other presidents have also talked about invading Iraq, so talking about and doing are two different things. The key phrase here is "after 9/11".
The difference was that Bush had convened cabinet level meeting on it and Secretary O'Neil being member of the cabinet had attended those meetings. These meetings had happend long before 9/11. As you can see it was not loose talk.

Donnie
05 Nov 04,, 20:47
I was not equating Bush with Saddam,

sorry, but the "had to go" quote was in reference to sadam, so i thought you were trying to compare them.


I have to somewhat disagree with you, left only started defending all these issues when they came under pressure from right after Bush got elected/selected in 2000.

whatever reason they had to make it an issue cost them the election. they lost by a narrow margin, if they had just dropped one issue they would have won.


The ideology of the left is very simple, it is pro-choice.

all ideologies need to fit the times or they wont happen, that simple. if you think it is black and white, then you better get used to republican presidents.


It believes in woman's right to choose,

this is a debate about where life begins, not choice. most people think that partial birth abortion is wrong, even pro-choice people, so if the left would just concede that third trimester abortions should probably not be a choice (except when the life of the mother is at risk of course) then they would win the election, now instead, since they couldnt compramise they are going to end up with much much worse, with a republican controled house and congress, the judiciary can be stacked in favor of the republicans, if this happens it will surly overturn roe vs wade.


it does not see a problem with stem cell research with material which are to be otherwise discarded anyway,

i honestly dont believe this peticular issue carries much weight, and probably could have been avoided altogether by the left, just by ignoring it, then making it an issue once they were in.


and it believes that gays like anybody else have rights of civil union and under that they should be able to visit their partners in hospitals, inherit their partners property and have similar rights. Why does right-wing have problem with that?

most americans dont, but most americans do hold a certain value to the word marriage. its called compramise, you have to inch out everything you get, if you go for the whole morality ball of wax at once you will be shut down



Left is not imposing these values on them,

the left is imposing a definition on a word they hold dear, no matter how hipocritical you feel they are in holding those beliefs, it doesnt give you the right to change them.


If they do not approve of gay "marriage" (marriage is just a word substitute it with any other word may be call it a civil union), that is fine too, nobody will force them to get married to a gay person, but why deny the gays some preliminary rights?

most americans are willing to give gays those rights, but not the marriage part. marriage IS from thier bible. the problem is the left isnt willing to compramise the total package for a chance to get closer the next time.


The problem with the right is that it wants to impose its own world view on those who do not agree with it. Rigt wing wants to roll back woman's right to choose,

you could say they want to protect the rights of the unborn, but you wont see it that way, just as they wont see how a womans has the right to murder her child



and wants to rollback the seperation between church and state.

there is no rolling back of church and state, takeing god out of the pledge is not rolloing back, neither is "in god we trust" or prayer at the supreme court. they have been there, the left want to secularize the state, and take those things away. the intent was to take government out of religion, not religion out of government. this is a progressive ideal, not some sort of roll back.


Right wing is about curtailing rights and limiting freedom, the left is about choice and the freedom which comes with choice, do you see the difference?

i see how you can see differences, and i know there are differences, but the lefts insistance on getting involved in the root of american values is going to keep them out of office.

compramise and get the middle, and hope for more as you progress. or dont, and lose it all.

Donnie
05 Nov 04,, 21:04
I don't remeber France intelligence saying that Saddam had WMD,

Mr Martino was the person who first turn in the yellow cake intel at the bequest of french intellegence, intel that was eventualy found to be fake.

"According to senior European officials, in 1999 he provided French officials with genuine documents which revealed Iraq may have been planning to expand "trade" with Niger. This trade was assumed to be in uranium, which is Niger's main export. It was then that Mr Martino first became aware of the value of documents relating to Niger's uranium exports. He was then asked by French officials to provide more information, which led to a flourishing "market" in documents. "

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0802niger.htm

this is why some believe the french set america up to fall on the yellow cake.

Confed999
06 Nov 04,, 00:05
Get them first.
All we needed was for them to have broken a cease-fire instead, and it would have been them.

Confed999
06 Nov 04,, 00:06
don't get your panties in a wad
ROTFL! :) I haven't heard that in some time, allways makes me laugh. ;)

James_Jerome
07 Nov 04,, 11:02
I think everyone here understands that their posted opinions are not going to be used for any real-life military decision-making, so don't get your panties in a wad.

First of all, Julie, I am a man, I am not gay, and I don't wear "panties." Furthermore, my undergarments are not "in a wad," not that it's any of your business (and I know it is just a saying, so don't bother posting a message to explain that to me :rolleyes: ).

You said:


That is what "forums" are for, debating, arguing, and second-guessing.

Again, Julie, I am well aware of what "forums" are for! I might be a "newbie" here, but I have been discussing issues of various topics in internet forums for a few years now. In fact, one comment in my post should have eliminated your need to explain this to me. As I said:


I realize that everyone is going to have their opinion about these things

It is not the discussion of opinions on which I was focusing, but rather specific comments which alledge credible authority on a topic, like these quotes from fonnicker:


I can't see how we cannot jump right in. If we don't, then what we did in Iraq was hypocritical. I just wish someone would at least acknowledge the fact that the war in Iraq was ill-timed. It very well could have waited until more immediate concerns were dealt with.

("fact tht the war in Iraq was ill-timed." Where is this a proven "fact." Also, "more immediate concerns?" Outsiders have no idea what threats are more immediate.)

and


So, that why we went in! It wasn't Saddam at all, it was military strategy. I feel much better now.

(the whole world works on strategy. Saddam, his weapons, his agression, his defiance, terrorists all play a part in it, but it is also about security now, and in the future, and what is morally right to protect the innocent victims of a cruel dictator).

or Ray's comment:


However, there be bigger blasted tyrants who require more attention than than fool Saddam. Remember the swinish Saudi Kings?

Get them first.

It is comments like these that lead novice readers to believe these statements are facts and based on some insight to military intelligence. Some people seem to be asserting their "opinions" as though they actually do have acess to secret military documents, or that they can determine which enemy is more of a threat, and which timing would be better. This is simply ridiculous!

It takes years of military training and actual combat "leadership' experience to even begin to understand these kinds of strategies. The President has all sorts of input from every experts in the field. He has people talking in his ear every day about every possible outcome to every action he takes. He most certainly has weighed the options and made the best choices according to his convictions and beliefs that we must not give the terrorists any more chances to regroup and strike again. It is a step-by-step mission, and none of us can know why one step is more important at a particular time than another. That is the point that I was making, so don't get your "panties in a wad" Julie.

On another subject, Ghostbuster has made some fairly assertive statemtents that ignores the other side of the issue being addressed. The propaganda techniqes of generalities, and name calling don't prove any points. For example:


heck pretty much the whole world (except for Israel) wanted Bush gone, but he was able to scrounge enough bible thumpers/gun-owners/gay-bashers votes in the keystate of Ohio and couple of million more nationally

Comments like "pretty much the whole world," and "millions more nationally," are not based in fact, and do not address the fact that the president was elected with the majority of the popular vote, by the people, in the country he represents. Where is the proof of the "whole world" comment? - propaganda.

Then, there is the name calling: "bible thumpers/gun-owners/gay-bashers" - more propaganda techniqes to belittle the people who support President Bush. Very poor debating tactics. Saying that he was able to "scrounge" enough, is a misrepresentation of the truth. He had the majority on his side - that is not "scrounging." One might say that Kerry "scrounged" enough "liberal, war protesting, obortion baby killers" to barely stay in the race - but that would be propaganda as well.

I do not care to address the labels of "right - conservative" vs. "left - liberal." There are many people, myself included, who strongly believe in issues that oppose either side of the extreme. I have fought for constitutional rights, against conservative viewpoints, which landed me in jail. I have also sided with those who struggle to preserve the integrity of a moral culture.

I think that some people here need to take a closer look at the difference between the definition of what is a "right" as opposed to what is a "privilage." Rights are those freedoms that rational people believe exist whether men, and laws, acknowledge them or not. I know that I have a right to live simply because no one can prove that they gave me this life, thus have the just authority to take it from me without due process. I have rights to own property, and to travel. Even if these "rights" are denied by tyrants, they still exist.

Privilages, on the other hand, are those things that we might be permitted to partake in, with the permission of the majority, or those appointed in authority, and usually at the expense of someone else. For instance, it is a right for me to travel on public land, but it is a privilage, for which I must gain permission, to travel across private property, or enter someone's home.

Some rights may be individually, and selectively, waived. For example, If I join the military, I have voluntarily given up certain rights of free travel, and possession of specific property. A person has the right to reproduce offspring, but that right may be taken away if they abuse, neglect, or abandon their children. Where the public, in general, has a vested interest in the outcome, or performance of a right, it can be restricted, or denied. Free speech is restricted if it will harm others.

The fact that people have the right to privacy, and freedom to engage in relationsips with any consenting adult, does not imply a "right" to be recognized as a "union" of any civil marriage or otherwise contractual arrgangement. Those that become married, may also get divorced, and fight for custody of children (adopted or otherwise), and dispute property claims. These court battles cost taxpayers money, therefore the public has a vested interest in their existence. A marriage is a contract between three parties: the husband, the wife, and the state. Regardless of religious ceremonies, anyone who can claim legal status as a spouce, can cost the taxpayers money through litigation.

It is the right of the public to decide if "civil unions" or marriages are in the best interest of the society, culture, and morality of everyone involved. Many do not believe in acknowledging the homosexual relationship as anything more than a perversion of nature. Anyone can fall in love - nothing to stop that. However, how we act upon that love determines our belief system. Some believe that sexual activity between any partners is an issue of lust. Lust, or sex with your legal spouce, in private, is considered morally acceptable.

The issue then boils down to: Lust after whomever you want, and Love whomever you choose, just don't ask to have same-sex lust recognized as a legal union. If you have debates over hospital visitation, then bring that issue up with hospitals. Pressure them to change their rules to allow the patient to choose who may visit. As to inheritance, this is simply passing your belongings on to your next of kin. I might love my neighbor, but he is not my spouse. If I want him to have my things when I die, I can simpy state it in a legal "will." There are ways to resolve problems, and complaints by same-sex lust-partners, but attempting to force the rest of the population to accept this perverted, and immoral behavior as a legal marriage is not likely to happen.

Those that use the propaganda "glittering generality" term of a woman's "right to choose" simply ignore the painful truth - "right to choose what?" They never say it accuarately. "A right to choose to terminate the life of a fetus - an unborn human child." This, my friends, is not a "right" by logic, by morality, nor by God. The cases like "Roe v. Wade" are so twisted by the time they reach the U.S. Supreme Court, that we rarely get an accurate decision and interpretation of the the law (without looking it up, do you even know who "Roe" and Wade were, and what was decide by the high court?).

The courts do not actually make the law, but judicial review can "re-write" it if we do not speak as a nation. The standard rule of the U.S. Supreme Court is to avoid deciding a constitutional issue, if there is any way they can dispose of the case otherwise. Roe v Wade did not, in any way, say that terminating the life of a fetus was a constitutional right! Learn some legal definitions, and court history before you use this case in support of your argument for abortion.

It is up to the people to decide what they will or will not tolerate on these moral, and legal issues (putting aside the religious "bible-thumper" propaganda). Our legal system has, in recent times, prosecuted people for double homicides, when a person kills a pregnant mother, thereby killing the unborn child. This is a double standard if we do not prosecute others who would terminate the life of an unborn child.

It is a moral dilemma, and a legal/medical issue as to when life begins. Even though a fetus might not be able to survive on its own without the host body of its mother, at an early point in pregnancy, the baby has a heart-beat, and brain activity. There has been surgery performed on a fetus, removed from the mother's womb, and then replaced for the remainder of the pregnancy. This is a living human being, whether inside the mother or not.

Nothing in any common sense establishes an absolute "right" of the mother to kill that baby before it passes through the birth canal. These notions of life beginning at birth, are as antiquated as the belief that the Earth is flat, and at the center of our solar system. We have learned so much more about human life within the womb, to go a back the dark ages of thinking this is not a human being, or that he or she is without rights that can, and should be protected.

When Americans advance their laws, constitutions, and court decisions to catch up with modern understanding of the rights of an unborn child that has two arms, two legs, a head, a spine (which is more than I can say about some people), and a heart beat that is controlled by a functioning human brain, then we can truely say that we are a civilized people.

Respectfully,
James Jerome
U.S. citizen, patriot.

Julie
07 Nov 04,, 22:30
Well, James Jerome, you seem to have such a large defense system there, I do not know where to penetrate first. :biggrin: First of all, it is encouraging to know the virility of your manhood, and you do not wear panties. The term "getting ones panties in a wad," is only an old southern expression used in calming one who is in over-reacting mode, which is usual with incoming newbies here, from the initial "shock and awe" of it all. :biggrin:


("fact tht the war in Iraq was ill-timed." Where is this a proven "fact." Also, "more immediate concerns?" Outsiders have no idea what threats are more immediate.) Many Americans have voiced their concerns about beginning another war before stabilizing Afghanistan. Fonnicker just wants it acknowledged, and not brushed aside. Your "proof" can be found in the pudding... how it tastes to you is strictly your own personal opinion.


(the whole world works on strategy. Saddam, his weapons, his agression, his defiance, terrorists all play a part in it, but it is also about security now, and in the future, and what is morally right to protect the innocent victims of a cruel dictator. What does that have to do with the timing which Fonnicker still seeks support?

Ray's comment - "However, there be bigger blasted tyrants who require more attention than than fool Saddam. Remember the swinish Saudi Kings? Get them first."


It is comments like these that lead novice readers to believe these statements are facts and based on some insight to military intelligence. Some people seem to be asserting their "opinions" as though they actually do have acess to secret military documents, or that they can determine which enemy is more of a threat, and which timing would be better. This is simply ridiculous! There has been much documentary evidence released regarding the Saudis terrorism involvement, and some people still wonder why the Saudis have not been held publically accountable to any of it. With that in mind, why is Ray's comment so ridiculous?

James, there was a link posted here before the election of an international poll taken. I believe the poll reflected Kerry 70% to Bush 30%, give or take a little. The national 48.5% of Kerry's votes, do represent millions of Americans, were not all because they voted on Kerry's issues, but because they did not like Bush for some reason or the other.


I do not care to address the labels of "right - conservative" vs. "left - liberal." I really do not know how to tell you to deal with that, except file a formal complaint with the Board Administrator. This board is as divided as the day at election time. :biggrin:


I think that some people here need to take a closer look at the difference between the definition of what is a "right" as opposed to what is a "privilage." Rights are those freedoms that rational people believe exist whether men, and laws, acknowledge them or not. I know that I have a right to live simply because no one can prove that they gave me this life, thus have the just authority to take it from me without due process. Being a woman, I defend Roe v. Wade for the simple fact that I should be able to make choices about my body in life, just as I choose to be an organ donor after my death.


Learn some legal definitions, and court history before you use this case in support of your argument for abortion. You do not have to patronize me regarding State and Federal Laws, since I was a practicing para-legal for 15 years defending the rights of the less fortunate. I ceased my dances in the courtrooms when Ashcroft began shredding our Constitution to fit his circumstances at the time.

Confed999
07 Nov 04,, 23:35
Many Americans have voiced their concerns about beginning another war before stabilizing Afghanistan. Fonnicker just wants it acknowledged, and not brushed aside. Your "proof" can be found in the pudding... how it tastes to you is strictly your own personal opinion.
Most of the people on this board have voiced that same opinion. It is an opinion though, his may differ.

There has been much documentary evidence released regarding the Saudis terrorism involvement, and some people still wonder why the Saudis have not been held publically accountable to any of it. With that in mind, why is Ray's comment so ridiculous?
Because nobody would have supported an invasion of SA. If one cannot support the removal of Saddam there is no way one could support regime change in Saudi. Political pressure from the west, as well as terrorists atacking Saudis, seems to be turning them without an invasion. So why go after them militarily?

Julie
08 Nov 04,, 02:13
Most of the people on this board have voiced that same opinion. It is an opinion though, his may differ. That is right, which does not make the ones that differ "armchair generals."


Because nobody would have supported an invasion of SA. If one cannot support the removal of Saddam there is no way one could support regime change in Saudi. Political pressure from the west, as well as terrorists atacking Saudis, seems to be turning them without an invasion. So why go after them militarily? I don't recall saying invade Saudi. I said holding them publically accountable, i.e. denouncing the acts of these clerics, and publically announcing the Saudis be accountable for the teaching and breeding of these fundamentalists within their country.

Confed999
08 Nov 04,, 02:47
That is right, which does not make the ones that differ "armchair generals."
Most of us are just "armchair generals". Ray and Officer of Engineers, I'm sure there are others as well, are exceptions because of their military knowledge and experience.

denouncing the acts of these clerics
They can do that, it's not the Saudi government saying it.

and publically announcing the Saudis be accountable for the teaching and breeding of these fundamentalists within their country.
But that's what they're probably using for some political pressure. I agree with you, they should be held accountable. It would still likely lead to an invasion, or worse, after years of terrorist building economic sanctions. The Saudis would balk at any "judgement" against them, and the UN would be unable to respond because the oil is needed by too many veto votes.
(A little armchair generaling here but, I don't think we'll see another ME invasion, bombardments and incursions, but no more invasions.)

-{SpoonmaN}-
08 Nov 04,, 03:47
Here's a list of some of George W. Bush Jr.'s achievments:

1. He's managed to turn a record surplus into a record deficit, all the while claiming that there was a recession, which really only seems to exist in folklore, and blaiming oil price rises, all the while supporing Isreal's invasions of Palestine and starting another war in the Middle East that is nowhere near over.

2. He's managed to alienate most of the world, which was more then willing to help America, by effectively saying "Screw You" whenever they don't immediatley fall in line.

3. He's taken America to war in Iraq on the basis of disarming a dictatorship, while leaving North Korea and Pakistan alone. He also said he was making sure terrorists wouldn't get their hands on new weapons, except that the collapse of the Iraqi government lead to hundreds of tons of munitions going missing.

4. He's taken America to war on the basis of supporting democracy in the Middle East, while he continued to sell new weapons and provide aid to the Saudi Royal family, who just happen to be an absolutist dictatorship with links to terrorists.

5. He sent US troops to war in a country they didn't understand, full of people they didn't understand, without trying to prevent them from doing things like hoisting the American flag over everything, torturing prisoners or enacting draconian punishments against looters (Like running their cars over with tanks because they stole $100 worth of building materials.)

6. He is clearly unwilling to or unable to understand that it is impossible to beat an insurgency, particularly an ethnic/religiously based insurgency by killing people, as that only inflames the hatreds their community holds for you. Furthermore, his attempts to fight the war on the cheap have left the US Army in Iraq badly short of soldiers and of things like body armour. This has left the US military stretched so thin that they now have to ask for help from the British, whose "low-key" approach to the occupation has been infinitely more successful, and to rely on half-trained Iraqi soldiers that often hate the Americans anyway.

7. He hasn't caught Osama Bin Laden, nor has he been prepared to finish the job in Afghanistan, nor has he been prepared to deploy anywhere near enough soldiers to that country either.

8. Under his stewardship the US government has opted to restrict the rights of certain groups of it's citizens, purley on the basis of their private lives.

Yeah, he's been a great President.

Ray
08 Nov 04,, 03:56
(the whole world works on strategy. Saddam, his weapons, his agression, his defiance, terrorists all play a part in it, but it is also about security now, and in the future, and what is morally right to protect the innocent victims of a cruel dictator).

or Ray's comment:


Quote:
However, there be bigger blasted tyrants who require more attention than than fool Saddam. Remember the swinish Saudi Kings?

Get them first.


It is comments like these that lead novice readers to believe these statements are facts and based on some insight to military intelligence. Some people seem to be asserting their "opinions" as though they actually do have acess to secret military documents, or that they can determine which enemy is more of a threat, and which timing would be better. This is simply ridiculous!

As Confed has drawn the attention, indeed I am a military officer.

I am a flag rank officer with four wars under the belt! And also have a long experience in anti terrorist operations which has been hassling India for a very long time.

I understand strategy and warfare since that has been my bread and butter. Therefore, if I sometimes appear to be a little terse on military issues, I would not be that ridiculous as you are trying to make me out to be. In my time, I too had access to what you call secret documents.

One of the Principles of War is 'Selection and Maintenance of Aim'. Another is 'Concentration of Force'.

The US aim was Osama and the Taliban. Very correctly, the US attacked Osama in Afghanistan which was being controlled by the Taliban.

To change tack even before Osama and the Taliban could be defeated in details, the aim shifted to Iraq. Militarily, that means deviating from the Principle of War - Slection and maintenance of Aim'.

Next is concentration of Force. By changing tack and going to Iraq while Afghanistan had not been brought to a logical close, the force has been dissipated. Thus, there is the helplessness that is being observed in Iraq as also in Afghanistan.

Even military history bears this out. Please read Operation Barbarossa where Hitler changed tack and the consequences thereafter.

Now why Saudi Arabia. It is the breeding ground of the Wahabis. If the political aim was to rid the world of Osama and the Taliban, then having first taken on the Osama and the Taliban and eliminating them completely (which the US could since they are not accountable to anyone, like it or not), then the spawning area should have been adddressed, namely Saudi Arabia.

Saddam Hussein had been already made impotent militarily and economically. He was lesser of the evil than Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. Saddam could have been addressed later.

Yet a word of caution. Having combatted Islamic terrorism for a very long time, it is very difficult to fight Islamic terrorism since they are enthused about living an after life in Paradise, damning their present life (which possibly to most of them is a bit of a hard grind to bear anyway) and maybe they read Wordsworth - My heart leaps up when I behold a Rainbow in the sky!

Interestingly, they also do not like negotiations. The lure of Paradise after death is too strong in them.

-{SpoonmaN}-
08 Nov 04,, 04:07
True that. Another argument against the administration's handling of the war on terrorism is the very fact that they call it a war. Aside from assisinating their leaders and taking out their camps, it is impossible to really fight terrorists, as they have no set base, no permanent leadership. Terrorism is like crime, it springs up everywhere from time to time, amongst all kinds of people, who want to acheive all kinds of aims. This isn't a comic book. There isn't some guy who all terrorists answer to, and once he is dead they will all surrender or something. There can never be a military victory over terrorism, rather there can only be a series of perpetual police actions to prevent any one group of them becoming too strong.
If you want to stop Islamic terrorism, the only way is to attack the source of their recruits and support: Poverty and ingorance in muslim countries.

tarek
08 Nov 04,, 04:14
Ray

"it is very difficult to fight Islamic terrorism since they are enthused about living an after life in Paradise, damning their present life (which possibly to most of them is a bit of a hard grind to bear anyway)"


But this is not the entirety of the sword bearers in the name of radical Islamism. These men and women, -- the suicide types are extra-ordinary, not the norm-- are to a considerable degree, rational, at least in a functional sense. Lets not make them ten feet tall.

There is a difference between India and Israel and the West, in India, the consencus as to who the enemy was, what kind of threat it represents has been answered in a very different way than in Israel or the US - this question of public agreement about the nature of the enemy, the political will to prevail and the financial and military capablity to do so, is a very diferent calculation in India.

If you will allow me, what all these who have the radical islamist enemy in common, have failed to do, is to make the case that it is not they but the Islamist who is the real enemyh of Muslims and their aspirations to be a part of the international order.

Can Islamist be defeated? Ask the taliban.

Ray
08 Nov 04,, 04:42
Tarek,

The Taliban still reigns unfortunately.

Ask Karzai as also Musharraf.

The Coaltion in Afghanistan as also the Pakistan Army is grappling with them.

Worse are the invisible ones in the city who are fomenting the mayhem in cities of Pakistan.

The cardinal error is to identify ALL Moslems as Islamic fundamentalists.

Take Fallujah. Indiscriminate bombing is turning more normal Moslems into terrorists. Say what you want. If I know I will have to die anyway, then why not take some of my adversaries along with me all the way to Paradise?

Sammara (?) was declared to have been 'liberated'. And yet again they have raised their heads! It is like a lizard. Whack it and pull its tail off. In no time the lizard grows its tail.

In India, because we don't think all Moslems are terrorists, the 'action' is there but not that devastating as in Iraq.

We have the same situation as Israel, but Israel has the advantage. They have 'sanitised' the Moslems from their area except when they come in for work. Since they have the backing of the US, they can be more 'aggressive' which I am afraid is not the privilege in India.

-{SpoonmaN}-
08 Nov 04,, 05:00
I don't know if santised is the best word to use.
Anyway, there over a million Arabs living in Isreal, and there are many Arabs actually serving in the IDF. How the intefada has effected their numbers or circumstances I don't know.

Officer of Engineers
08 Nov 04,, 05:02
Sir,

I do not know if the Taliban is still reigning in Afghanistan. If the Mujahadeen is any example, then there would be other groups already displacing them. I cannot and will not speak for your experience but Muslims are not a unified group hell bent on paradise. The Serbs and Croats handled them with just as much brutallity and determination with the Muslims on the losing end more often than not.

I may not be able to stop all the Muslims determined to goto paradise but I can send send the one charging me to paradise, ... and the one after him ... and the one after him ... and the one after him.

Sir, I have stared the toughest meanest tank army on earth ... seeing more tanks than I care to remember ... all of which seemingly have all guns pointed straight at me. My job, Sir, was not to stop the 1st Moscow. It was to stop which ever regiment was attacking me.

By the same token, Sir, you fight today's fight and leave tomorrow's fight to tomorrow.

Am I over-confident when facing the Islamic threat? Perhaps but ragtorn virgins just ain't as scary as tank armies.

Also, Sir, I keep raising the Indian example of how British India destroyed Thugee.

-{SpoonmaN}-
08 Nov 04,, 05:03
And why does it say private first class under my name? I'm a little too young and a little too Australian to be in the US Army.

-{SpoonmaN}-
08 Nov 04,, 05:09
"Am I over-confident when facing the Islamic threat? Perhaps but ragtorn virgins just ain't as scary as tank armies."

Lay off the stereotypes man.

Leader
08 Nov 04,, 05:17
And why does it say private first class under my name? I'm a little too young and a little too Australian to be in the US Army.

You get higher ranks as you post more. When you get to 8 or 9 hundred you choose your own.

tarek
08 Nov 04,, 05:20
Taliban are finished as a organized government - what we do find in Pakistani cities are Al-Qaida and it's Pakistani sectarian out sourcing.

Taliban do exist in refugee camps but refugee camps are being drained as the Afghans are being repatriated. And as the operations in Wana suggest, the will to confront any remnants is being reenforced.

Falluja - indiscriminate bombing? I wish, but unfortunately it is not the case. It is not ordinary Fallujans who are the adversary but Al-Qaida and it's Sunni and former secret police operatives.

I find in your analysis, little to suggest the military experience you possess, you paint with entiorely too broad a brush - the suggestion that terrorists are created by the effort to bring order, prosperity and a chance at a dignified life, reflects a attitude of helplessness and it's entirely uncalled for. Samarra - look, one operation does not a war make - The terrorist also are adept at psyops - at the end of the day, have you any doubt that the US will prevail?? Cuz if you do, get ready to convert, get ready to experience the full force of radical Islam.

Ys, that was just what I was getting at about US support, but again, you use to broad a brush, neither Israel nor US consider all Muslims to be the enemy and certainly not all Muslims consider Israel and the US to be the enemy. Recall with regard to Islrael that they were more than willing to work with Hamas and recall the US was similarly willing to work with Hamas and did in fact work with Jamaat e ulema e Islam and Jamaat e Islami.

We cannot put at risk our persepective with regard to the radical Islamist - he and she, are motivated to regard the world as their enemy because their ideology demands it - -if these are now confronted with "with us or against us", lets recall that it was the radical Islamist who presented us with the exact same option - now, not only has it been turned on them but thank God that there is the determination to stay the course.

If you will do some research, you will find that the US policy makers did not even have a position with regard to radical Islam, until the Islamist forced it upon them - anyway, now that we have a awakening, let us be grateful.

It's curious, even Ironic, that I, a conscious, by choice ,Muslim, and you a non-Muslim. should find ourselves on the oppowsite sides of the issue.

Officer of Engineers
08 Nov 04,, 05:32
Lay off the stereotypes man.

Live with it. I'm too damned old to give a damn about my enemies.

Leader
08 Nov 04,, 05:34
Live with it. I'm too damned old to give a damn about my enemies.

LOL :biggrin:

Ray
08 Nov 04,, 06:41
What I meant was AQ when I stated Taliban.

Colonel,

The European Moslems have a much more liberal and a more non aggressive mindset. The main reason could be because of education in a secular environment.

The Arabs and the Middle East equally have a different mindset. The Indian sub-contimentals are diffferent but have a tilt towards the Arabised Islam. Indonesians and Malaysian are docile and are more moderate.

That being what it is, the Osama and Bush factor has galvanised them to a great extent. The Moslem at one time ruled a large part of the world and even had a foothold in Spain! They were slowly beaten back to their present state where they cannot even call the shots in their own country without US's say so. A very pathetic state of affairs for the once rulers of the world (in a manner of speaking).

Then came Bush. Osama had become a Frankenstein for the West And he wanted to have his pound of flesh. He attacked the 'Great White Satan' (the icon of world power - the usurper of the bygone Islamic domination of the world).

The US like the proverbial hornet's nest was rattled. It took off like angry bees justified in having been disturbed. The war on terror commenced. Instead of taking on Osama alone which was absolutely justified, the US shifted sights on to Iraq. Highly inflamed rhetoric against other Moslem nations like Syria and Iran changed the complexion of the war on terror to appear as if it was a war on Islam. Books like the Clash of Civilisation gave credence to this idea. The Islamic world closed shoulders inspite of their inherent differences. Countries like Turkey too shied away. Pakistan became a reluctant partner since the General's own credibility was in doubt and he felt threatened and realised that with a powerful and benevolent partner like the US he could not only save himself but also to a great extent his failing country. Indeed, it was a wise decision. It was in Pakistan's interest since the Pashtoons in the western part of Pakistan were always a threat, they having affinity with the Afghanis Pashtoons and because of the latent demand of Pakhtoonistan.

In short, it has become a Crusade – a quote that Bush made much to today’s dismay.

Colonel,

Having faced tanks and terrorists, I personally feel an enemy tank can be identified and a missile or an anti tank weapon can be fired at it. But a terrorist is another face in the crowd. Kill a wrong guy and more will emerge from his kith and kin to avenge this unwarranted death of an innocent. Therefore, to my mind a terrorist is a more difficult target. The worst thing is that he can kill you first since you don’t know who is a terrorist and who is an innocent civilian. An enemy tank is discernable. Unlike the US and Europeans, we are at the total mercy of the human rights organisations and the good old “Great White Satan’ :). If we did a Fallujah in Kashmir, we would be flayed alive by you all. You do a Fallujah and who can raise Cain? That’s the difference.

Colonel, I have answered you on the British elimination of Thugees. The local leaders and population were all for it. It is not so in Iraq or even Afghanistan (where warlords hold the sway).

Tarek,
• so all those civilians, women and children in Fallujah are terrorists? Yes, I have immense doubt that the US will prevail. Bombing and indiscriminate killing won’t do. The British way as in South Iraq, may.
• I like the US, but I won’t bend backwards to toe the line.
• To understand terrorists, you have to work against them and not get to be experts on a forum.
• Your comments on my military experience are as good and learned as the ‘educated’ pollsters views of the US elections! Do give me a break.
• You find me a non Moslem to be on the wrong side of the argument? Well, I have faced radical Islam as a non Moslem. You as a Moslem got away. I didn’t find radical Islam a pleasant experience, but I did like the tolerant Islam of the Kashmiris (those not infected by the fundamentalist virus). I am a realist. Further, I am an atheist. I have had enough of religious zealotry the world over. It is too much a of pain to bear.

In so far as Afghanistan goes, Karzai's writ runs in Kabul alone. Just google and see the ‘Simpson’s World’ of the BBC. And the best part of that programme was that it was in North Afghanistan where there is hardly any influence of the AQ.

-{SpoonmaN}-
08 Nov 04,, 06:52
Officer, it's prejudiced fools like you who wreck the world for all the normal people, I don't give a damn how old you are, you don't have the right to throw sectarian slurs around in a political discussion.

Gio
08 Nov 04,, 07:59
*PC Alarm*

Officer of Engineers
08 Nov 04,, 08:25
Officer, it's prejudiced fools like you who wreck the world for all the normal people, I don't give a damn how old you are, you don't have the right to throw sectarian slurs around in a political discussion.

Blow me!

Leader
08 Nov 04,, 08:38
Blow me!

OMG LOL

Gio
08 Nov 04,, 08:39
rofl, can't say he didn't ask for it.

Julie
08 Nov 04,, 14:06
Officer, it's prejudiced fools like you who wreck the world for all the normal people, I don't give a damn how old you are, you don't have the right to throw sectarian slurs around in a political discussion.

OMG....he hasn't met lulldapull yet has he ?? :biggrin:

tarek
08 Nov 04,, 15:19
Ray

"Do give me a break"

Certainly, however; there is no need to be defensive, not with me - struggling with radical Islamists, you can tell friend from foe.

I got away?? - Perhaps it may seem like that from your persepective, but really no one does or can get away - there is no neutrality in this. These people will come after us where ever we are unless ofcourse we can go after them.

you have once again suggested that in Falluja what we have is indiscriminate bombings - I don't know what you basing this on - you have said that there have been civilians deaths in the city as a result of targetting Al-Zarkawi, who would deny that terrorists use civilians as human shields?

I believe the marines are in the outskirts of the city and have captured a small section of the city including a hospital, and have arrested 4 non-Iraqi Jihadis, can we take from this that the combatants are not all Fallujans but Al-Qaida terrorists?? Can we at least be open to that proposition?

Officer of Engineers
08 Nov 04,, 15:20
Colonel,

Having faced tanks and terrorists, I personally feel an enemy tank can be identified and a missile or an anti tank weapon can be fired at it.

Sir, I was not speaking of a single tank to which as an engr, I am not impressed. I'm speaking of entire tank armies ... in every sense of the word. Let's give the worst case scenario to the terror threat. They got hold of a nuke ... that hardly compare to the 37,000 nukes we were going to throw at each other. The world is a lot safer place today than when we were going to burn alot of babies.


But a terrorist is another face in the crowd. Kill a wrong guy and more will emerge from his kith and kin to avenge this unwarranted death of an innocent.

Sir, when thugs hide behind women skirts and baby carriages, get rid of the women and children. As with any effective insurgency counter, you punish the family, done in the Old World since time immemorial. In the days of old, you put the family to the knife. These days, you destroy their homes ... or the base of operations in milspeak. I've seen it done in the Balkans and the Russians are doing it in Chechnya. It's slow. It's brutal (you're not killing women and children, you're just throwing them out to the wolves, the cold, and the heat ... or in the best case scenario, a concentration camp) but it works.


Therefore, to my mind a terrorist is a more difficult target. The worst thing is that he can kill you first since you don’t know who is a terrorist and who is an innocent civilian. An enemy tank is discernable. Unlike the US and Europeans, we are at the total mercy of the human rights organisations and the good old “Great White Satan’ :). If we did a Fallujah in Kashmir, we would be flayed alive by you all. You do a Fallujah and who can raise Cain? That’s the difference.

That, Sir, I do not envy you. While the Americans are bound by law, they are also very capable of changing the law.


Colonel, I have answered you on the British elimination of Thugees. The local leaders and population were all for it. It is not so in Iraq or even Afghanistan (where warlords hold the sway).

Sir, I take what little comfort there is in that example in knowing that it can be done.

Ray
09 Nov 04,, 16:49
Tarek,

There is a overpowering (which is based on Islamic fundamentalist propaganda) that Islam is under attack. The unfortuante part is that the average man of the Islamic world (and even other Asian countries) is economically not very endowed. In fact, a large majority are downright poor and hence are not adequately educated. Therefore, there is an undercurrent of being deprived (even though this maybe very misplaced a sentiment).

Hence, the take solace in religion, which the Mullahs are all too willingly to exploit. Unlike other religions, Islam has the concept of ummah (the Islamic world being one). Therefore, to find malcontents from the Islamic world congregate to fight their idea of 'axis of evil' is not surprising. Hnece no Iraqis would have also congregated in the trouble spots of Iraq.

It is too early to predict the outcome of Fallujah.

Having seen this type of warfare for a long time, I could possibly be cynical.

These terrorists are like protoplasm. You try to cut it. It build up again and in more pieces. That is if my school days biology is not too flawed.

Look at Sammarra. It was declared 'liberated' and these malcontents have returned.

The only solace I take is that the US makes law and couldn't care less about other opinions. Therefore, there is a sliver lining in the black clouds. I have had to combat terrorism with the human rights, international opinions and our pinkos breathing down the neck. And I was accountable to ensure there is no stink! A very difficult task.

Shey Tapani
10 Jul 09,, 09:22
If Texas would have been serious about secession Bush could run for an another presidency.:tongue::tongue:

Bigfella
10 Jul 09,, 14:39
Gun Grape,

Time for the kittens & the skinny lady methinks. Someone needs a little lesson.:)

Shey Tapani
10 Jul 09,, 15:24
Why, i know some people here love Bush, i figured out a way make him presideny once more. Texas would become a nostalgia-state for Bush fans.:cool:

astralis
10 Jul 09,, 15:42
man, this beats the 2006 necropost. this doesn't call for just one dead lady, this calls for a platoon.

zraver
10 Jul 09,, 16:24
http://i26.tinypic.com/28tkewl.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/1zwkig9.png

Shey Tapani
10 Jul 09,, 17:24
I was an accident, i wasnt aware of the fact that this thread is that old.

I just saw the thread title and imagined Bush as the Texan pres.

I ,,got high" on the idea.

Sorry.
:(:(:(:(:(:(

I thought Bigfealla said that because i was critical/ironic of Bush.

gunnut
10 Jul 09,, 18:08
I was an accident, i wasnt aware of the fact that this thread is that old.

I just saw the thread title and imagined Bush as the Texan pres.

I ,,got high" on the idea.

Sorry.
:(:(:(:(:(:(

I thought Bigfealla said that because i was critical/ironic of Bush.

Nah...BF is referring to an infamous picture Gun Grape always posts when someone resurrects an ancient thread.

Trust me, you don't want him to do that. :P

Shey Tapani
10 Jul 09,, 18:12
I never seen a thread this old which wasnt closed.

So should Bush get a third term?:confused::confused:

If it would be electable of course.

gunnut
10 Jul 09,, 18:20
I never seen a thread this old which wasnt closed.

So should Bush get a third term?:confused::confused:

If it would be electable of course.

No, Bush should not get a third term. It's against our constitution.

Shey Tapani
10 Jul 09,, 19:52
Roosevelt had 4 terms.:biggrin:

gunnut
10 Jul 09,, 20:07
Roosevelt had 4 terms.:biggrin:

That was before we changed the constitution to a 2 term limit.

When George Washington retired after 2 terms, it became an unwritten rule that presidents do not seek more than 2 terms out of respect for our founding father. Obviously FDR ignored that. So we changed our constitution to make it a "written" rule.

It is a good rule.

Johnny W
10 Jul 09,, 20:23
Be nice if we could write a similar amendment for Senators and House of Representative members, but I don't see it happening.