Wow I feel like I'm reading the tales of the crusades again or maybe something from the state run newspapers in China or N Korea. How one man has been able to stave off the invading hordes and keep all Americans safe by invading an already isolated country in the name of removing "Evil" from the world.

You see the moron has gotten us into a little predicament. First he builds everyone up about the threat, distorting the truth. He didn't lie but hey a lil embellishment never hurt, right? Then we go in and can't seem to find anything. Oh no quite a bit of egg on the face now! We can't very well leave now with all the chest thumping we started with. Let's stick it out and try to convince the masses that they need to be like us. That's a bright idea, you can't even get the tribes who wanted to get rid of Saddam to cooperate fully and we expect them to embrace peace and democracy as an entire country. Looks like some history lessons have been forgotten about this region.


As far as the economy goes I would ask people from a few states like California, Oregon if they feel the economy is coming back to life. Yes there is growth but in the typical cyclical fashions. It has little if anything to do with who is in office.

History no doubt will show that Dubya was clearly an idiot amongst the Presidents that have led the US.

 

Could you define isolated for me please. I can not understand how a country that can fund terriost organizations around the world, a country that provides training grounds for international terriost groups, and a country that can provide all kinds of neat weapons to those international terriost organizations can be considered isolated.

To me isolated means one that has no way of communicating and no contact what so ever with anybody outside of their boarders. So you see Iraq was never an isolated country but an international player on the worlds terriost statge.

Which one would that be? President Clinton or President Bush? Actually President Clinton was more specific about the threat that Iraq posed to the international community. I take it that both the Democratic and Republican parties along with the entire United Nations distorted the truth and facts?

Let’s take the state of California. We don’t need to ask the state of California anything, we need to ask the majority of the people in California why they elected by over whelming amounts democrats to hold office in that state. It is the democrats through FAILED policies that have put the state where it is. The same failed policy I have mentioned time and time again which is TAX INCREASE, it never works and never will.

Let’s ask California why they raised spending much more then the revenue coming into the state. That’s a great place to start. Basic economics states if you only have $100 then you can ONLY spend $100, it is very simple when you think about it. California is in the position they are in because that is what most Californians wanted. They elected officials who they knew loved to suck money from their paychecks and then spend even more of it on stupid hand-out programs.

California needs leaders who understand economics and how they work. They need to practice sound policies that work every single time they are tried like tax cuts. Tax cuts are always a win/win situation, more money in the working people’s pockets and business owner’s pockets. More money in business people’s pockets means job growth, more money in working peoples pockets means job growths because they are spending more money and buying more goods. Sale more goods mean’s someone has to make more goods to replace them, job growth me friend…

Only history will tell, at the moment he is doing pretty damn good with the seriousness of the situation. It would have been an absolute nightmare had Algore successfully stolen the election and been selected President…

 

America becoming a conquering imperialist nation is considerably different from being the only superpower to yield that power responsibly. I by all means support wiping out entire nations when they represent a real threat to our country. I just don't see it here. Giving the lives of our soldiers for a minimal threat with no real plan for ending and getting out will surely leave us on the down side when the history books are written.


Tried to edit to get the responses in proper form. Didn't work as I am not skilled in the quoted replies.

 

America is not becoming a conquering imperialist nation nor does America wipe out entire nations when they represent a real threat to our country. If that were true there ever war America has even been in could be considered a “conquering imperialist nation”

America did not wipe out the complete nation or country of Iraq, it was actually extremely little damage to remove a terriost and terriost supporting regime. Just like during WWII and taking out Hitler’s regime. Neither was done by a ”conquering imperialist nation” but rather as a humane way of ending a serious threat to the world and the mass murders and torture taking place every day.

Does anyone not remember the holocaust? Does no one remember all the innocent Jewish people being tortured and murdered by a dictator? Does no one remember that Hitler’s goal was to conquer the world and that he was a great and grave danger for the world?

It really does surprises me that people among us forget so soon lessons only learned 50 years ago or so which is appeasement never works, ask France and Germany who have also forgotten so soon.

Saddam was a terriost, mass murderer dictator who thought nothing of torturing people and killing untold thousands of his very own people with chemical weapons. Americas response was morally correct and just, there is no denying it, no getting away from the fact.

Now even though the current administration has never stated that Iraq was responsible for 911 does not mean Iraq had no involvement with terriost actions aimed towards the United States and its citizens. Just as the administration can not say for a fact the Iraq did not have nothing to do with 911 neither can anyone else state for a fact that Iraq played no part at all.

Iraq was a serious threat to the world and now its dictator has been taking out of power to drastically reduce that danger, not to eliminate the danger completely, but drastically reduced.

America did not go over and win the war and then declare Iraq as America’s prize, that would be an ”conquering imperialist nation” action. It has not happen and will not happen…

Just like America has never completely wiped out a nation…

 

I just realized that the quote you posted contained some feedback to my prior post. I will repost below to break it up and you had intended to make it easier for others to read and know my initial responses and then your counter responses…

 

Rugby’s response:

You just described the House of Saud or Saudia Arabia, the Bush family ally. How many hijacker or terrorist bombers were Iraqi? That's right they were Saudi's. Also don't forget the wonderfull Pakistani's who we had to buy off for help. There is another country on the worlds stage.

01 XLT Sport’s answer:

I agree with you there that Saudi is another terriost country that needs to be dealt with. However they are not just a Bush family ally, they were the Clinton family ally and every other President family ally as well…

Rugby’s response:

Saddam had pretty much become a mouth piece just like Khadaffi. His actions didn't affect anything in the region or the world for that matter. I will agree they have been a player in the terrorist game but only as a second string place kicker.

01 XLT Sport’s answer:

I disagree with you on that one. Saddam was much more then a mouth piece. He had the money and infrastructure to make chemical, biological and was on his way to developing nuclear weapons as well. That would make him a big dealer in WMD’s for sale to any terriost organization that had the cash to buy the WMD’s and then import them to America for use on innocent citizens.

Let me be clear about Iraq, it is not a question as to DID Iraq processes WMD’s that fact was established, it was a matter of when was Iraq going to sale them to other terriost orginazations. Iraq did indeed have WMD’s that is an undisputed fact.

Rugby’s response:

That would be Dubya! The Iraqi threat was bigger ten years ago. I guess the spouting of evidence of trying to purchase materials for nuclear weapons without being investigated is just a faux pau. If we had or have such great intelligence on the threat that was posed why can't it be found? Instead of going into a country with no long term plan, it should have been a surgical strike, either way the international fallout would have been the same.

01 XLT Sport's answer:

Well unfortunately I have to disagree with you once again. President Clinton in a speech, I believe Dec of 1998 stated in more detail what President Bush had stated about the threat Iraq posed on America and the world at large, of which President Clinton made specific mention to chemical, biological and possible nuclear weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton went on to further state, in that speech or a year or so later about “regime change”. At that time many of the democrats in both houses, like Dushel, Guiphart and many others were ALL for taking out Saddam by military action.

Most likely the reason so many democrats were behind it was they knew President Clinton would not follow through with the threat of war on Iraq.

Rugby’s response:

Business is closing down the unemployment rate is huge. Putting money in peoples pockets does not automatically mean they go out and spend. The funny thing about the tax cut this year was it's an advance on next years taxes. It actually stated that on my check on got for my two children. I used it to pay off bills not go out and spur the economy.
You didn't mention the crippling effect Bush's buddies had with the manufactured energy crisis. The only money into business pockets went straight into personal accounts.

01 XLT Sport’s answer:

You’re correct there are a lot of businesses leaving California. They are doing so for many reasons including taxes being so high, medical insurance being so high, workmen comp costing so much etc. In other words the cost of business in California is so high that companies have decided to spend the big money it takes to leave and relocate so as to have better cost of operations in other states.

Tax cuts will help very much to reduce the cost of business. As I have always stated and always will tax cuts ALWAYS work to grow the job market and to grow the state revenue and it always puts more money in people’s pockets which in turn helps to spur the growth of the economy.

Tax increases NEVER work and never will. Every time they are tried they fail. Like when President Clinton was busy raising taxes it caused the Clinton recession that President Bush was handed as a “welcome to the White House” gift…

Tax increase stifle growth in the economy as seen in the state of California, and it stifles the buying power of the ordinary citizen because they have less money to spend…

 

01 XLT Sport,

With every post you make, I have to take your comments less seriously. You are speaking just like, Bush and those in his administration have been. He makes comments over and over again until the numerious sheep throughout our country believe him. The idea being that if the president says so, it must be true, because after all, he's the president. You are just being a mouthpeice for his incompetence.

If you believe everything you say and stand behind everything, Bush has done, you don't live in reality.

Look at his presidency: He was elected with 500,000 fewer votes than Gore. You and our idiot dictator need to understand and appreciate that the majority of Americans did not want this puppet as our leader. He's unqualified and does not act on behalf of the majority of our population. His precidency has been about returning favors to the wealthiest of Americans since the day he took office.

Not even taking into consideration that the US Supreme Court may have given the election to Bush without any legal basis, look at what it took to get him that far. He was given the Republican nomination because of name recognition and the fact that he had more money than any other candidate because of his close ties to corporations like Enron. He broke every single spending record up till that point on his campaign.

Look back at the political atmosphere of 2000 and you'll also see that Americans were very complacent. We didn't have anything to worry about and thought it didn't matter much who was our next president. Bush was elected because of apathy, at best.

Bush spent the first 7 months of his term working a regular 40 hour week, returning favors to those who gave him all that money to buy the office of the presidency. Then, after working leisurely for these first 7 months, he took the entire month of August off, to vacation at his ranch.

His first challange came on September 11, 2001 and revealed his incompetence and failed policies that were designed to, again, pay back those who helped him buy the presidencey. In a December 2001 interview, he jokingly expressed that his initial reaction to the first plane hit the WTC tower was that quote: "there's one terrible pilot."


Every policy he has is based on paying back the corporations that put him in office.

Forget about kids supporting terroists through marijuana purchases. It's, Bush's oil buddies that have always been their largest contributors. Bush even used the presidency to support Al Queda, when in March 2001, he sent the Taliban $43 million as a "gift". He did so knowing full well that they were sheltering Osama bin Laden and his terrorists camps.

Bush gave the Taliban these millions of dollars because he wanted to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Of course this again was to return the favor to those who bought him the presidency. Bush continued negotiating with the Taliban (on behalf of his oil buddies) and when they still refused to allow the pipeline in July 2001, he treatened them with miltary action, possibly helping to instigate the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Look at how the administartion has acted since 9/11/2001. Bush immediately asked if we could tie these attacks to Saddam Hussein. Not if he were involved, but if we could make it look like he were so we could get the Iraqi oil. Bush had been waiting for an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and got just what he was hoping for with 9/11. "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad. He,he."

Bush, justified the invasion of Iraq with lies to all of us. "Iraq tried to purchase significant quantities of uranium from Nigeria." He knew this was false and used it anyway. He didn't use the US intelligence (Or as, Bush would say: "intelligy") because it stated that they had not attempted to purchase uranium,. He instead used the British intelligence that was based on forged documents that a 5 year old could have spotted. So what is it: Bush lied or has less intelligence than a 5 year old?

Bush invaded Iraq soley for the oil.

What else is there about the Iraq invasion to show his incompetence: His administration spent 9 months preparing for the invasion and less than one month figuring out what to do after Saddam Hussein were gone (Misplaced is more accurate, as it turns out). Rumsfeld is just as short sited and incompetent as, Bush is. Because again, his sole focus has been on Iraqi oil. They weren't willing take take into account anything adverse. All they thought about was oil. It's like jumping out of a speeding car because a dollar bill flew out. They do not think things through because they are unwilling to look at the variables.

Saddam's ties to terrorists and terrorists now in Iraq: Last month, a poll showed that, Bush had 70% of the American public believing that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11/2001. He accomplished this by saying again and again the Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists. The truth behind this statement is that since 1994, Iraq has been holding one of the terrorists involed in the 1993 WTC bombing. They have been holding him in a Baghdad prison, asking the US to come get him. If holding terrorists in prison for 10 years is the standard, then we are much more guilty of support than Iraq has been. Bush has no problem misleading us for his oil agenda.

What about the terrorists now in Iraq: Bush, by invading, gave them the perfect venue to kill American soldiers and citizens. Now, instead of trying to sneak into the US, all they need to do is get a fake passport, blend into the Iraqi cities and ambush Americans at every opportunity. Recently, there have been an average of 20 attacks on American soldiers per day in Iraq. This will happen as long as we are there because there will be no way to tell who is a civilian and who is a terroroist.

Bush got us into a war in Iraq that will last indefinitely. As long as we are there, we will be targets. You can also forget about the Iraqi oil pipeline ever supplying enough oil to pay for the war or rebuild Iraq. All it takes is one man with a couple pounds of explosives to destroy a pipeline, blow up a refinery, shut down a power substation, destroy a water supply pipe or a bridge. There are plenty of terrible people that do not want us there and will do anything to make us fail, and we will.

So, Bush got us into a war that will never end, for a resource we will never be able to control or profit from. Idiot! He got us into a war for oil, to return the favor to his campaign contributors and it's not ever going to work because he didn't think it through.

This war was not justified. There are much more dangerous threats than Saddam Hussein was. Bush said Hussein was an imminent threat and he wasn't. He said they had WMD and knew exactly where they were and he didn't. They lied. Bush and his professional pack of liars have been making it up as they go along and they have been wrong every single time.

How about, Bush going back on his word and comparing Clinton's nation building efforts to those of Bush: In the 2000 presidential race, Bush critisized Clinton and Gore for sending troops into Kosovo, saying "I will not use our troops for nation building." Look at the reality now. Clinton sent troops to Kosovo for a noble cause and things are still going very, very well there. Beyond just the success of the country through Clintons policies, not a single US solder has been killed in Kosovo. Not one.

Now, look at Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan: Afghanistan is still just as dangerous as it was almost 2 years ago. The Taliban leaders are still alive and influential. Osama bin Laden has not been captured and we installed a dictator, Karzai, who has less control over the country than the local Klan leaders. And of course, no oil pipe line will last because the country will always have plenty of people with the means and the will to destroy it. Yet another, Bush plan that fails because he doesn't see the big picture. Clinton built nations to help, Bush attempts to build nations for oil.

There also are no valid comparisons to be made between Hitler and Hussein or WWII and Iraq. Completely different lunatics, times, countries, reasons for war. Hitler was gaining control of all Europe and attempting to exterminate an entire race of people. Saddam Hussein was nothing more than your garden variety psychopathic dictator with oil.

Iraq was no longer a regional threat and they certainly were not the "imminet treat" that Bush clearly stated they were. You cannot justify overthrowing a dictator simply because he has oil.

01 XLT Sport,

You stated:

"Saddam was a terriost, mass murderer dictator who thought nothing of torturing people and killing untold thousands of his very own people with chemical weapons. Americas response was morally correct and just, there is no denying it, no getting away from the fact."

There is no evidence that Hussein was a terrorist or had supported terrorists. Although he was a dictator and a terribly cruel man, this is not the standard we have for war. If this were the reasoning behind removing a dictator, we would be in China, Korea, Burma, Cambodia, Chechneya, Iran, and on and on and on. Pol Pot was responsible for the torture and deaths of millions of Cambodians and we did nothing at all there.

We have a history of actually installing dictators that are just a cruel as Saddam Hussein. Look at Pinochet, in Chile. Our support of the Contras in Nicaragua. The Shah in Iran. Don't forget or overlook that we also helped Hussein develop his weapons and Reagan said nothing at all when he used those chemicals on the Kurds.

 

AjRagno:

Good liberal, good liberal, keep typing out the liberal taking points…

Now does that above sentence make sense? Not in and of itself because I don’t think your necessarily typing out the liberal taking points. Why do I think your not doing that? Because you can actually come back and back up your post with “your” actual thoughts and why you feel the way you do about them.

I would appreciate the same respect back from you. Yes there are things I agree with President Bush on and there are others I do not. I never have been a mouthpiece for anyone but myself. Now, the fact that many of my “own” beliefs fall within conservatives views on things such as President Reagan, and some of President Bush’s does not mean I am a talking piece for their entire agenda.

I talk for myself and I can back everything up that I write about here because it is what I believe from the soul, not from papers, not from TV news bits, and not from the many of BS web sites (both conservative and liberal).

When I have time I will try to address your post but I will leave you with this as far as President Bush being “elected” as President.

The Supreme court of the United States actual did their duty and FOLLOWED the Constitution in the matter and stifled a run away court in Flordia, that did not have a CLUE about JUSTICE.

I was one, maybe of few who thought THERE SHOULD BE A RECOUNT, except I differed from the democrats who wanted to “pick and choose” areas to their liking. My position was one of two ways:

Complete statewide recount by hand, or the same method throughout Florida OR throw out any and all votes that could not be counted by the machines. The democrats oversaw the elections in the counties that they wanted to recount. Since it was under democrats control to begin with and some people had problems then the ballots that could not be counted by machine should have been voided out completely, better luck next time, get it right and fix the problems.

Do not blame the United States Supreme court for reining in a run-a-way liberal court in Florida who tried to participate in the stealing of an election FROM THE PEOPLE OF FLORDIA, not Bush and not Gore, but the people.

President Bush is our President, he is your President and he is so legally and just. Get over it, move on and/or start a grass root organization to elect someone else to President in 2004 or 2008. This absolute hatred some of you liberals have over LOOSING (and fairly) is unreal, no wonder they want all competitive sports out of our schools…

 

I have a few minutes so I will address you “popular vote” concerns and the 500,000 number your throwing around.

Presidential elections are done with the Electoral College. Each state has 1 electoral vote per a specified amount of citizens in their respected state. I don’t recall what the ratio is. However I would refer you to the United States Constitution for further information for this is the document that has been used since its inception for guiding the country on how to elect a President.

It has never been based on the popular vote. However that is something you might be able to change if you get a big enough grass roots organization up and running and then are able to convince 2/3’s of the states…

That is called “amending” the United States Constitution and it takes 2/3’s of the states to ratify…

Good luck…

Oh, and lets be fair here. If someone does not like the outcome of something that was based on rules, then you change the rules AFTER the fact, not because your team lost. It’s un-American and pro-liberal…

 

Everything I said is perfectly logical. Although I'm sure you also know it's accurate, you won't admit this because it goes against your agenda. I don't have any idea why people support, Bush's actions when they look at his motives.

I would be extremely pleased if I were wrong, but I don't think that's going to be shown as time goes by.

My point about the 2000 elections is not that Bush won and Gore lost, but that Bush has been behaving more as a dictator than an elected official even though the majority of our citizens did not vote for him.

 

Originally qouted by AjRagno:
My friend, if you do not believe there is evidence Saddam was a terrorost, how do you explain this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/2785095.stm

If you deny that mass murder is not terrorr, you are very sick.



Origanally qouted by AjRagno:

And what makes you qualified enough to judge the qualifications of the President of the United States? I believe according to the Constitution, he has met the necissary requirements to be President. What do you mean by our "unqualified leader"?

You call him a puppet then you call him an idiot dictator don't these two terms kind of contradict each other?

 

I already pointed out what he was: A psychopathic dictator. There have been and still are plenty of dictators around the world doing the same terrible things to their citizens. You don't see us going in and stopping it though because these other countries don't have the oil Iraq does.

You, my friend should look back at fairly recent US history and see all of the fine examples of US presidents that remove elected officals and install dictators with secret police to exterminate opposition.

 

I will answer parts of your post for two reasons. I have answered some already in the previous post, your post is quit long, and I took out some of the general liberal spin to get to some of the other liberal spin.

First liberal mistake. You are trying to tie the reason for going to war based on one “small” piece of intelligence that was from the British who STILL stand by it. This has nothing to due with the other intelligence that was considered forged. Anyhow, it is reasonable to believe because Saddam, some time ago, I don’t recall the year did INDEED try to buy some uranium from Nigeria, therefore it is reasonable to believe that Saddam “may” have attempted to do so again.

In any case without that piece of intelligence there was plenty of other factually based intelligence, along with an absolutely overwhelming support of Congress, and the entire United Nations for going to war with Iraq. Do you recall all the United Nations resolutions, do you recall that the United Nations also stated the same facts as did the United States that Iraq had chemical, biological and possible nuclear weapons of MASS destruction? Perhaps you were napping during those times, were you napping when Mr. Clinton made the same arguments and the vast majority of democrats and liberals were backing Mr. Clinton to invade Iraq?

It seems to upset you that Mr. Clinton only talked the talk but could not back it up like President Bush by walking the walk. Desperate times call for desperate measures to protect the innocent American citizens. President Bush rose to the occasion and succeeded.


Liberal spin that is getting extremely old. Drop it because nobody is buying the hate speech anymore or the fact that others are fantasying reasons that do not exist.

Let me ask this, did WW I, WWII, Vietnam or any other conflict EVERY goes as planned? NO they didn’t, there is always unforeseen problems that have to be worked out in real time. Iraq is no different except we have some in this generation that seem to think every thing should be done correctly and VERY quickly no matter what. Get over it, it will take time A LOT of time until the mission is complete.

That is way out there in left field…

Can you provide some factual information on the statement “ They have been holding him in a Baghdad prison, asking the US to come get him’ Is that like related to the 3 yes 3 chances President Clinton was offered to have Bin Laden? Anyway if you listen to many of the sources out there you would have a decent clue that Iraq did INDEED harbor terriost, not one dumb chit in a cell, but thousands of others, provided them with training centers and shelter. Wasn’t Saddam a wonderful man? Oh and lets not forget the 707 haul used for terriost training…

That is a great thing, that they will not try to sneak into the US, rather they will “try” to face the real bad asses themselves our military strength and for the most part get their asses handed to them in body bags. It is much better to keep the terriost there rather then try to hunt them down in our own cities here in America. At least there our military folks can KILL the bastards unlike in America where all the liberals would want to swoop around them and protect them and maybe come up with some lame excuse as He is only a terriost because he had a bad upbringing” Screw that kill the bastards every single one of them. We can legally do that in Iraq so best to keep them there…

I cut out the rest since its basically trying to make a point about appeasement. Bush has us in this war for ever, Bush is a bad man for facing the enemy head on, Bush this Bush that.

If you want to be an appeaser then great, you have that right. However know that most Americans when told the truth about what happen when one practices being an appeaser don’t believe in it. They, now knowing what Hitler did, do not approve of what Europe did by appeasing Hitler, like France and Germany.

You would have everyone believe if we just left good ol’ Saddam alone, good ol’ Bin Laden alone and any number of nut case wackos that want to see America destroyed alone that they would play nice with us.

Sorry my friend that is NOT reality, you have to face up to the realities of fears in the real world. There are terriost among us and they must all be KILLED or have their minds changed. It does NOT matter what a terriost thinks is right or wrong, it does NOT matter that a terriost thinks he got screwed by America of who ever. All that really matters that a terriost should know is IF we catch you we will KILL you like a freaking co*kroach….

 

Bush's reasoning for war was that Saddam had tried to purchase uranium, currently has WMD and is an imminent threat. That the administration and yourself are now saying there were other reasons is simply spin. Bush made it very clear that we had to stop Saddam right now because he may have a nuclear bomb any day. Bush was told repeatedly not to site the CIA reports supporting the uranium claim because they had been discredited so he instead went with the British claim. If he didn't check the documents that these claims were based on, then he's incompetent. If he did check, then he lied.

The uranium and WMD treat were his sited justifications for war.

Bush invaded soley for the oil?

There is no spin there. The truth is always simple. Could also be that it was because quote: "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad."

Bush was not prepared for what would happen after Saddam lost power. We had no plan whatsoever about how to control or support the population and he should have. If you read the news this morning, you'll see the Whitehouse has just admitted this.

Saddam harboring terrorist. There have not been any terrorists camps found in Iraq. There were no intelligence photos before the war to support this either. I'm familiar with the 707 at Salman Pak but I'm also quite aware that the only people giving explainations for it's use are right wing propogandists. The Whitehouse has not been siting this information. When you say "thousands of terrorists", do you really think that Saddam, a man that demanded complete control of every single aspect of his country would have allowed thousands of armed fanatics to set up camp and play with guns and bombs in his back yard? That is far off in left field I'm not going to stick up for Saddam Hussein, but why hasn't the Whitehouse released proof (not innuendo) that he was training terrorists? That is something I'd like to see as it would influence my opinion.

The rest of what you said is so ridiculous that it's not even worthy of a response

 

I can understand, it happens all the time when debating liberals and they run out of "talking points"...