Bush was right

[dcentity2000]

To think that anyone, on either side, would be swayed from this thread is delusional. It won't happen, for either position. When Joe and Dawn began taking personal attacks, I responded. I'm sorry if standing up for them is not honorable in your mind. You see they didn't deserve the personal attacks either, but they got them.

I think you meant to say "shape up or ship out". That's the phrase we in the US are familiar with.

That fact that you seem to be saying that I have no credibility with you, or with the other hard left liberals, is of no concern to me. I hope that didn't come as a surprise to you.

While I'm not on the far right, I certainly do support our governments position with regards to the Iraq war and the war on terrorism.

Now we're getting somewhere - politics have returned

Why exactly do you support the attack on Iraq when it could have been military intervention in Darfur?



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Your'e making my point! After 9/11, all bets were off for the terrorists.

That's a silly comment. We in Europe have dealt with terrorists for thousands of years, in one shape or another. 9/11 did not herald a new era of terrorism - instead, it continued the tradition. Nothing has changed.

We have never liked terrorists, nor will we ever. They deserved to be locked away, removed from the productive cycle.

The point was that the war caused a surge in terrorism that may very well not have happened had we gone in under majority approval.



Rich::

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Now we're getting somewhere - politics have returned

Why exactly do you support the attack on Iraq when it could have been military intervention in Darfur?



Rich::

By the same token, why not invade Iran, or North Korea or any other country where "we" don't like the ruler or government or politics or whatever. The Iraq war has redefined what's needed to justify an invasion/war/government overthrow and that is quite scary.

 

[dcentity2000]

By the same token, why not invade Iran, or North Korea or any other country where "we" don't like the ruler or government or politics or whatever. The Iraq war has redefined what's needed to justify an invasion/war/government overthrow and that is quite scary.

Yeah, you're right. It's a great dilemma.



Rich::

 

[TCPluto]

We in Europe have dealt with terrorists for thousands of years, in one shape or another. 9/11 did not herald a new era of terrorism - instead, it continued the tradition. Nothing has changed.

We have never liked terrorists, nor will we ever. They deserved to be locked away, removed from the productive cycle.

The point was that the war caused a surge in terrorism that may very well not have happened had we gone in under majority approval.



Rich::

Maybe if the rest of the world didn't "deal" with terrorism for thousands of years as they have (or haven't, as the case may be), it would come to an end? I would suggest that it's not something to "deal" with, which implies you tolerate it. You see, we aren't used to it in our own country. We did something about it. It hasn't happened since 9/11. It could at any time and is certainly more likely if we relent.

You say lock away the terrorists, I say exterminate them.

I'm quite thankful that our leaders won't seek world approval for the defense of our country. The UN, or any particular country or coalition of countries, should never have veto power over the US defending itself. And they never will, thank god.

 

[TCPluto]

By the same token, why not invade Iran, or North Korea or any other country where "we" don't like the ruler or government or politics or whatever. The Iraq war has redefined what's needed to justify an invasion/war/government overthrow and that is quite scary.

You're right Tigger, what next is the big question. There certainly is more work to be done.

Simply not liking a government is not the issue however. If that were the case, you'd be summering in Cuba right now. If only it were so simple.

I don't think you'll find anyone advocating military action of any sort because a government or its leader is simply not in favor. That's actually quite absurd.

 

[salmoneous]

I'm quite thankful that our leaders won't seek world approval for the defense of our country. The UN, or any particular country or coalition of countries, should never have veto power over the US defending itself. And they never will, thank god.

I'm confused. When did we stop talking about the invastion of Iraq in this thread, and start talking about actions to defend the US?

 

[LakeAriel]

Mass murdering government officials are on trial for their acts.

When is Bush going on trial with his officials for mass murder?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You're right Tigger, what next is the big question. There certainly is more work to be done.

Simply not liking a government is not the issue however. If that were the case, you'd be summering in Cuba right now. If only it were so simple.

I don't think you'll find anyone advocating military action of any sort because a government or its leader is simply not in favor. That's actually quite absurd.

But as it turns out that's exactly why we invaded Iraq. What is absurd is the assumption that Iraq or Saddam presented any threat to the U.S. except for our gluttonous oil interests.

I know it's not about who we like or don't like. It's all about who has what we want and right now we want oil and lots of it.

Next on the hit list is obviously Iran.

 

[TCPluto]

I'm confused. When did we stop talking about the invastion of Iraq in this thread, and start talking about actions to defend the US?

Please try to keep up Sal. It was a segue from another point Richie made, in response to one of my posts, which was in response to one of his posts, etc.

If you haven't noticed as yet, this is quite common on internet discussion threads. You start in one direction and eventually several turns and curves are encountered.

 

[TCPluto]

But as it turns out that's exactly why we invaded Iraq. What is absurd is the assumption that Iraq or Saddam presented any threat to the U.S. except for our gluttonous oil interests.

I know it's not about who we like or don't like. It's all about who has what we want and right now we want oil and lots of it.

Next on the hit list is obviously Iran.

I do believe, as did most of the entire country at one time, that Saddam was a threat (to the world, not just the US) and did suppoort terrorism. John Kerry admitted it, can't you?

Iran may be next, but I don't think it's because we want their oil. The nuclear issue comes to mind though.

 

[TCPluto]

Mass murdering government officials are on trial for their acts.

Thanks to the US and our military.

No one likes war, but to not recognize that it's sometimes necessary is ridiculous. Can we ever have a war where there are no collateral deaths, deaths of civilians? I don't think so. Same with deaths from friendly fire. No one likes it, but it is a fact of war.

In WWII, the UK suffered almost 62,000 civilian deaths; Germany, almost 2 million; France, over 260,000; Russia, over 13 million. All of which is incredibly tragic. But that's the stuff of which war is made, and that's yet another reason to not rush in, which we didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I do believe, as did most of the entire country at one time, that Saddam was a threat (to the world, not jsut the US) and did suppoort terrorism. John Kerry admitted it, can't you?

Saddam was a threat to the Middle East certainly. To the world -- not likely. Can you say Scud missle or Republican Army? The man was more of a threat to the people of Iraq than to anyone else.

There are lots of other countries that support terrorism. Are they on your hit list?

Iran may be next, but I don't think it's because we want their oil. The nuclear issue comes to mind though.

If nukes push countries up on the list, where does N. Korea fall?

 

[LakeAriel]

Thanks to the US and our military.

No one likes war, but to not recognize that it's sometimes necessary is ridiculous. Can we ever have a war where there are no collateral deaths, deaths of civilians? I don't think so. Same with deaths from friendly fire. No one likes it, but it is a fact of war.

In WWII, the UK suffered almost 62,000 civilian deaths; Germany, almost 2 million; France, over 260,000; Russia, over 13 million. All of which is incredibly tragic. But that's the stuff of which war is made, and that's yet another reason to not rush in, which we didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

A) Are you comparing WW11 to our invading Iraq?
B) We did rush in. We had inspectors on the groud. There was zero murder or mayhem going on
C) When you drop thousands of pounds of bombs into the middle of Baghdad you don't call those deaths "collateral damage" That's slaughter.

 

[TCPluto]

A) Are you comparing WW11 to our invading Iraq?
B) We did rush in. We had inspectors on the groud. There was zero murder or mayhem going on
C) When you drop thousands of pounds of bombs into the middle of Baghdad you don't call those deaths "collateral damage" That's slaughter.

A. Of course not. you want President Bush charged with the murder of Iraqi civilians and I was pointing out that civilians die in every war. Please read the responses in the context of what they were responding to.

B. Please go back and research the murder and mayehm that was taking place in Iraq before we arrived. Isn't that why Saddam is on trial?

C. What do you call the bombings in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam? We have exercised great restraint. For instance, troops were unable to take out active threats when they were being fired upon from Mosques. That's just crazy.

If we had fought this war under the sames terms as any of the previous wars (maybe not vietnam), we would be home by now.

Nobody wants war of any kind, except the terrorists. But we can't ignore the fact that we have to fight this war, and maybe something else, somewhere else, in the future. That's why we have a standing military.

 

[TCPluto]

Saddam was a threat to the Middle East certainly. To the world -- not likely. Can you say Scud missle or Republican Army? The man was more of a threat to the people of Iraq than to anyone else.

There are lots of other countries that support terrorism. Are they on your hit list? If nukes push countries up on the list, where does N. Korea fall?

You're absolutely right Tigger. I would love to not have to be in the position we're in. I would prefer to let everyone take care of their own problems, because I know we can take care of ours, and we would do a better job at home if we could ignore the world. But we can't.

N. Koreas has to be dealt with, you're right. It's not easy being the leader of the free world, and I think President Bush is doing better than Kerry, Dean, or AlGore would have.

That's all.

 

[dcentity2000]

Maybe if the rest of the world didn't "deal" with terrorism for thousands of years as they have (or haven't, as the case may be), it would come to an end? I would suggest that it's not something to "deal" with, which implies you tolerate it. You see, we aren't used to it in our own country. We did something about it. It hasn't happened since 9/11. It could at any time and is certainly more likely if we relent.

You say lock away the terrorists, I say exterminate them.

I'm quite thankful that our leaders won't seek world approval for the defense of our country. The UN, or any particular country or coalition of countries, should never have veto power over the US defending itself. And they never will, thank god.

We did deal with them - we are at peace with the IRA. No invasion necessary.

As for the bypassing the UN, well, if you advocate that you're falling right into the terrorist hands - you are bypassing democracy and the rule of law.

Learn from the older, more experienced countries - invasions always fail to work.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

I do believe, as did most of the entire country at one time, that Saddam was a threat (to the world, not just the US) and did suppoort terrorism. John Kerry admitted it, can't you?

Iran may be next, but I don't think it's because we want their oil. The nuclear issue comes to mind though.

I quote from Downing Street:

"Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

You were all tricked into thinking he was a threat to you through the WMD lies. You need to remove the blinkers.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

But that's the stuff of which war is made, and that's yet another reason to not rush in, which we didn't.

yes we did! That's why we ignored the UN - impatience!



Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

yes we did! That's why we ignored the UN - impatience!



Rich::

We ignored the UN (aka Russia, China, Germany and France) because they were "in the tank" for Saddam. They were up to their necks in oil......for food, and had every financial incentive for keeping him in power. If anything, we had too much patience and should have not given Saddam 2 months lead time to move the WMDs to Syria.