"I really don't understand the passive approch the liberals want to take in the war on terror."

Passive Approach?! What are we doing about Iran, or North Korea right now. We moved out of Afghanistan before the job was done. Now the Taliban's back to their old tricks and selling more Opium than ever. Talk about Passive.

You guys still don't get it. Iraq had Nothing to Do with the war on Terror. No Al Quada link. Our own Pentagon is Still saying that as of Today. No Link to 9/11.

We're seriously fighting terror right now when you can Walk across our Southern boarder? Give me a break. Bush is dropping the Ball when it comes to the fight on Terror. He's blowing all our resources on Iraq!

 

I think we're at 27,000 there after a Recent surge of US troops to fight a Taliban offensive. (It makes me sick we're still even Talking about the Taliban).

You think if we had 180,000 troops there Osama Bin Laden would still be running around?


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...ops/index.html

 

Saddam Hussain put out a reward to any Iraqi that could shoot down or kill an American soldier. Thats all the justification I need.

Saddam did have terrorist training camps and was donating money to other terrorist groups. In my mind that makes it worth the expense.


Back in the mid 1990's our guys were dodging missles and dropping bombs on a regular basis. Long after peace was declared.


If you got a boner because of this WMD stuff then fine. But WMD's werent the only reason Iraq got invaded. Instead of going on this rant about how wrong Bush was, maybe you should stop and think about all the stuff that was right.


Im not going to berate the president for doing some thing that should have been done along time ago.



Terrorist groups are nothing more then groups of murders who kill to make a political point. Its wrong to fund them, its wrong to shelter them, its wrong to arm them, its wrong to support them.

There is nothing wrong with trying to stop them.

George Bush isnt playing "Tit for Tat" like the Isrealis do.

So what if its expensive?? So what if its bloody?? So was 911

And the Cole bombing

And the Embassies in Africa

And the Marine Barricks in Saudi Arabia

And the first World Trade Center Bombing



While these kind of wars wont end terrorism, it makes it a very unsafe profession. Al-Quida is nothing like it was 6 years ago. It also has a deffinent impact on their funding and support.

It may not be the best way to go about things, but what else are you going to do???


Ignore them and count your dead after they strike?

Kiss their butts and hope they leave you alone?

Thats not the way I want to live. If they want to send their Jihadists to our front door step, I have no problem with sending our Military to theres.

 

So, you think that we should have troops on the ground in Iran, and/or Korea rather than Iraq? You don't see any benefit in stabilizing a central country in the middle east?

We are out of Afganistan? Yes we have fewer troops, but if I remember correctly, there are UN forces, that are also engaging in combat missions.

"Us guys" don't get it? I never though that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11/01 attacks. I may have missed where anyone said that Iraq did have direct involvement in the 9/11/01 attacks. I believe that Al-Qaeda did have traing camps in Iraq and that Saddam did harbour terrorist organizations. Al-Qaeda deffinitly has a presance in Iraq now. Better there than here.

I don't get the liberal mindset. Bash Bush all day for going into Iraq, then say that Iran and Korea need a swift kick in the pants. Make up your mind.

Maybe every conflict doesn't require military action. It's obvious that terrorists want to fight us. I for one would rather they fight our trained military in Iraq than us untrained civillians here in the cities and towns that we live in.

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Not a seperate war. That is how I see it. Seems logical to me.

 

Has anyone ever read Micheal Crichton's book "State of Fear"?

It is great book about global warming scare and machines behind it.

A good read for a fictional book filled with verified facts.

It makes you go hhhmmmmm......

An American problem solved?
Break into my home, BANG!!! your dead...problem solved. I may be a cowboy.

 

So, you think that we should have troops on the ground in Iran, and/or Korea rather than Iraq? You don't see any benefit in stabilizing a central country in the middle east?

If we were going to invade a country, YES, It should have been Iran or NK. I was one of the people who wasn't buying the "Iraq's a threat to the US" story. Even if they Would have had WMD's. They'd been successfully neutralized after the 91 war.

Most of the country was under a no fly zone. We had inspectors running around. They were trading oil for food. If we saw a radar installation go up, we bombed it. Iraq was contained. Iran and NK obviously were not.

Do you really think we're "stabilizing" Iraq right now?

 

I posted this in another thread but, by removing the Islamic pro terrorism government from Iraq, Syria and Iran are cut off from eachother. And it creates two stable democracies in the area making life alot harder for those nutjobs and their jihad BS,

 

I wish that were true. You know who's running the government in Iraq now? The Sunni's. We might as well given the country to IRAN.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an Independent. I've got my CC license and was one of the first ones to get it in Ohio. I'm not some Left Wing extremist here. Don't try that "liberal" crap on me. This isn't the case.

But I'm also not going to Blindly follow the Republican Party here. Especially when they're doing wrong. You're seeing a lot of other Republican's breaking ranks as well.

There are Many Countries out there that are a threat to the US. There always Will be. And if one reaches out to us, Like Afghanistan, we need to wipe them off the planet (which we haven't done yet!).

 

Im not trying any liberal crap on you. Simply an observation of mine, yes there is still along way to go in Iraq. But strategically cutting the region down the middle will make it alot harder for those aholes in Iran and Syria. Thats why I think Iraq is the place to start, personally I would have liked to seen him assasinated after what he did to the Kurds.

 

Oh the inspectors? Those are the fellows that repeatedly were not allowed to enter certain areas of compounds and research labs owned by Saddam? Yeah, you're right, he was definitely not hiding anything from us...we had inspectors!

 

Yet they were close enough to Attack American's somehow on American Soil. So Close it warranted a Pre-imptive Attack on their country..

 

Where did you get that? The taliban is getting its *** kicked, they may be selling opium but their ability to fight in Afghanistan is no where near where it was. The US forces are needed in Iraq. The last time the taliban attempted a large attack they got their asses kicked, Canadian forces and the Afghans can deal with the taliban.

 

You are an expert at solving problems the U. S. of A way! Blame America. It's all our fault that terrorists want to kill us.

You're a smart fella. You know that Saddam didn't need to hit the US to start one h3ll of a ruckus.

If it walks like a duck....

You don't want people trying the "liberal crap" on you yet you're free to throw steretypes around? That appears to be a liberal tactic to me.

Liberals have wanted Bush to fail from the two thousand elections. If you hadn't noticed they jump on any opportunity to possibly bring him down. Iraq could have been more successfull to this point if Bush and his administration didn't have the liberals biting at their heals for the past six years.

All the liberals, and terrorists, have to do is be patient. They have been successfull at wearing down the American people. They both have broken the will of enough people in this country to declare victory.

Hey liberals and terrorists: You win. We all lose.

 

"Iraq could have been more successfull to this point if Bush and his administration didn't have the liberals biting at their heals for the past six years."

So you think the failings in Iraq over the last 4 years are the Dem's fault? That's this Administration's way. Don't take any responsibility for your actions and Blame someone else if it all goes wrong...

I'm sure it's somehow Bill Clinton's Fault. Even though it was Bush Sr. that blew the First war with Iraq by letting Saddam stay in power.

I try not to Stereotype like that. I don't try to play the Dem's vs Republican thing. You'll see "Liberal" thrown around in this thread a LOT more than any other Stereotype in this thread. Let's not cast stones. There's some in the Far Right, some on the Far left. Most of us are in the Middle. I'm pretty much Dead Center.

I'm too much of a free thinker, And Too SMART to attach myself to EITHER of these parties!! They both Suck!

 

Ahh. Putting things into context a bit.