But I will not delude myself to believe that this invasion has anything to do

with some “World wide war on terrorism.”

************************************************************ **************

“A”, am I given to understand that you don’t believe that we’re at war with

terrorism, that the war is a new thing, or that you don’t believe that there

were and are terrorist factions that were trained, sheltered and supported by

the Hussein regime? Further, do I understand that anyone who believes any

of the above to be true are “deluded” to your way of thinking?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"By the way...we won the battles in Southeast Asia...we just lost the politcal war."

Let's assume this is true.

What should we learn from it?

Mr. A

[/quote]

We should learn:

The fact that you don't like Bush and probably feel that the election was stolen (waaaahhhh) is irrelevant.  The President is who he is and unless you want to see our country high centered (I like car analogies ) on time wasting activities like futile impeachment hearings and endless gassbags bloviating to the cameras in Congressional investigations, you and others like you should do something more constructive.  While we are wasting time on this bullcrap, the terrorists are planning their next moves against us.  They have said they want to destroy us.  I believe them and have no patience for this pointless navel gazing that the left wants to do.

[quote=babbling looney]The fact that you don't like Bush and probably feel that the election was stolen (waaaahhhh) is irrelevant.  [/quote]

Our buddy "A" is that curious combination of obvious misogynist and self-described liberal Democrat...<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I said I identify with her plight. You can take the rest of your assumptions and put them uptions your...

Yes, I'm well aware of the story. It doesn't dimimnish the fact that if Bush had taken a couple of extra hours out of his vacation, the whole thing would have been over.

Believe what you want about why we're there or what we're doing. I don't really care. The question is, what are we going to do?

"You hate George Bush and you're against the war..." Did I say either of these things? No I did not.

What Joedabrkr? Are you just itching to become the next Mikebutler/Starka? That's the best you have? Misquoting and assumptions? If so just say so and we'll both save a lot of time. You can be scroll fodder, no skin off my teeth.

"...but you identify with the troops?" I'm the one who keeps saying, let's bring in the reinforcements. Isn't that supporting the troops? Don't confuse politics and patriotism. There are plenty of Democrats in the trenches too. Truth be told, it has been the Democrats that fought and died in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. (don't say no, don't forget the South was solid Dem until LBJ and Civil Rights)

"Kinda like how most of your legislators were happy to vote in support of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan until things got a little tougher and less popular. BLAH BLAH BLAH RANT RANT RANT RAVE RAVE RAVE!"

1. I don't speak for anyone but myself. I wasn't in favor of giving the President those powers at the time. I was disappointed with the Democrats that they were in a position that allowed the Republicans to call a vote right before an election.

2. I have yet to hear a single person object to the invasion of Afghanistan, to the contrary, we'd all like to see more attention being paid to getting Bin Laden and ridding the world of the Taliban and Al queda. 

3. There is no honor in being wrong. There is less honor in not admitting a mistake.

4. There are plenty of Republicans that wish they never voted to give Bush this authority too, but I don't hear you talking about them.

5. The pot with the orange handle is De Caf!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Yes, I'm well aware of the story. It doesn't dimimnish the fact that if Bush had taken a couple of extra hours out of his vacation, the whole thing would have been over. [/quote]

First, I don't believe you were aware of the facts, your post made it celar you didn't. Second, if you really think it would have been "over" if he'd met with her aagin you're either a fool or a liar. Just take a look at what happened when McCain met with her.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"You hate George Bush and you're against the war..." Did I say either of these things? No I did not. [/quote]

Again, you must be joking.....

 [quote=mranonymous2u]That's the best you have? Misquoting and assumptions? [/quote]

Sounds like you're angry that someone might have (he didn't btw) stolen your M.O....

"... don't forget the South was solid Dem until LBJ and Civil Rights."

It stayed "solid Dem" in House, Senate and state elections until very recently...

 [quote=mranonymous2u]I was disappointed with the Democrats that they were in a position that allowed the Republicans to call a vote right before an election.[/quote]

How dare they have to take a vote and state their positions clearly and THEN have to face the voters. How very unfair....

[quote=mranonymous2u]I have yet to hear a single person object to the invasion of Afghanistan, ...[/quote]

I guess you had your ears closed when the "it's really for an oil pipeline" theory was being repeated...

Well, well… First, I am serving and have gone to the sand box. So I think I have a right to speak from the troop’s point of view. Cindy Sheehan is a Michael Moore leftist puppet. She does not even speak for 1/100th of the military population, yet she is the poster child for those on the left.



Her son, who was a fully mature man, volunteered to go back to IRAQ for a second tour. She spit on his dead grave and insulted our nation by aligning her self with Chaves/Iran/North Korea, then insulting our leaders, military and alleys (Israel and others).



Did we go to quick to war you ask? Well the list of attacks is large so we waited to long. We crushed Al Qaeda and Husain in a few months. We also removed about 90 of the top 100 terrorists in the world. Yes, the left always falls back to Osama. Osama is stuck in a hole. Each day he has to snoop around so he does not get a bomb on his head. War and rebuilding a nation is never easy. The left wants everything easy and completed yesterday.



I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don’t get it or even are open to hearing another opinion. You look at everything in the rear view mirror. We try to look forward. In 2001 the president and our nation witnessed something that can not be described in words. We took proactive action on the best Intel we and every other nation in the world had. Before 9.11 we were very reactive. Beirut and Semolina we ran. WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. Note we also view attacks against our allies (Isreal, Britan, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, Afganistan, Lebannon and others) as attacks against us.



So you think we should be passive again?

Ladies and gents just returned from visiting 30 of out OEI and OIE wounded warriors. They are proud and do believe in the cause.

"Not to let wars be swayed by the left leaning propagandistic press."

No longer a problem, the left leaning press has been replaced with the corporate profits driven press.

"To let the military professionals, who know best how, formulate the battles on the ground."

Yes, and after this mess we will have learned not to fire those professionals whenever they disagree with the politicians.

"To keep the professional politicians far far away from any decisions that are life and death, since they only care about their own a$$es and being re-elected. "

We tried to get rid of Carl Rove, it didn't stick.

"To stop being so politically correct and concerned about minuscule day to day events, counting every death as if it were some sort of a scorecard in a football game, and to concentrate on the end game."

Yeah cause if there aren't 50,000 dead, it just doesn't count!

"The fact that you don't like Bush and probably feel that the election was stolen (waaaahhhh) is irrelevant."

Which is exactly what I said above. Do you even read or are you a skimmer?

"...you should do something more constructive. "

Like coming to the suggestion that we ought to put more troops on the ground and we ought to get advice from someone other than the mullyack that created this abortion! 

You seem to want to do SOMETHING and are willing to run around like a silly goose with it's head cut off if that's something enough.

That's the quickest way to get yourself and others killed in a war.

Mr. A

"Cindy Sheehan is a Michael Moore leftist puppet. She does not even speak for 1/100th of the military population, yet she is the poster child for those on the left."

Sez you.

I've barely heard her name since the 2004 election.

"  We crushed Al Qaeda and Husain in a few months." You STILL think Saddam had anything to do with Al Queda? Even the administration has shot this canard in the face! It was obviuos from the very start that this was a lie.

Truth be told, Saddam was our strongest ally in the middle east. If we weren't in an all fired hurry to "avenge daddy's legacy" (One of my MANY opinions) there is no reason that we couldn't have brokered a deal with this religiously MODERATE (by middle eastern standards, liberal by mid west standards, Godless by West Texas standards) nation. Would I have liked it? No, but I recognize that there are times that we makes deals with unsavory characters when it is in our countries best interests.

"I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don't get it or even are open to hearing another opinion."

That's really not nice and not true, I've been nothing but conversational with you. I'm interested in thought out opinions. But I won't just swoon over the lies that have been told to us by this administration, and I'm underimpressed by persons who simply vomiturate the pablum fed to them by the administration.

"WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. "

Not true, but then we had a Congress that was wasting the world's time with a witchhunt around a $60,000 loss in a real estate transaction. Not to mention that we also had issues in Haiti, Somalia (which George H Bush decided to spring on the nation at the very time he was a lame duck, it did take the focus off the FACT that he pardoned all of he witnesses against him in the Iran/Contra treason case he would have been named in.) and Bosnia.

Mr. A

[quote=AirForce]



I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don’t get it or even are open to hearing another opinion. You look at everything in the rear view mirror. We try to look forward. In 2001 the president and our nation witnessed something that can not be described in words. We took proactive action on the best Intel we and every other nation in the world had. Before 9.11 we were very reactive. Beirut and Semolina we ran. WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. Note we also view attacks against our allies (Isreal, Britan, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, Afganistan, Lebannon and others) as attacks against us.



So you think we should be passive again?[/quote]

We ran away from WHEAT?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

“Cindy Sheehan is a Michael Moore leftist puppet. She does not even speak for 1/100th of the military population, yet she is the poster child for those on the left.”

Sez you.

I've barely heard her name since the 2004 election.

"  We crushed Al Qaeda and Husain in a few months." You STILL think Saddam had anything to do with Al Queda? Even the administration has shot this canard in the face! It was obviuos from the very start that this was a lie.

Truth be told, Saddam was our strongest ally in the middle east. If we weren't in an all fired hurry to "avenge daddy's legacy" (One of my MANY opinions) there is no reason that we couldn't have brokered a deal with this religiously MODERATE (by middle eastern standards, liberal by mid west standards, Godless by West Texas standards) nation. Would I have liked it? No, but I recognize that there are times that we makes deals with unsavory characters when it is in our countries best interests.

"I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don't get it or even are open to hearing another opinion."

That's really not nice and not true, I've been nothing but conversational with you. I'm interested in thought out opinions. But I won't just swoon over the lies that have been told to us by this administration, and I'm underimpressed by persons who simply vomiturate the pablum fed to them by the administration.

"WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. "

Not true, but then we had a Congress that was wasting the world's time with a witchhunt around a $60,000 loss in a real estate transaction. Not to mention that we also had issues in Haiti, Somalia (which George H Bush decided to spring on the nation at the very time he was a lame duck, it did take the focus off the FACT that he pardoned all of he witnesses against him in the Iran/Contra treason case he would have been named in.) and Bosnia.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"Not to let wars be swayed by the left leaning propagandistic press."

No longer a problem, the left leaning press has been replaced with the corporate profits driven press. [/quote]

I just love the way the left has convinced themselves of this one...

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"To let the military professionals, who know best how, formulate the battles on the ground."

Yes, and after this mess we will have learned not to fire those professionals whenever they disagree with the politicians.[/quote]

Another one of those vacuous toss-away lines from people who think they’re witty, but simply betray the fact that they don’t have a clue. The obvious reference to Shenseki, who was already scheduled to retire (he had gone behind Rummy’s back to get Congress to revive the Crusader artillery system that Rummy had rightfully killed) long  he made his “300k” comment, and it misses the fact that he was never a commander on the ground in Iraq, and that his advice contradicted the advice from the real ground commanders.

It’s the same tortured logic that says Cindy Sheehan would have gone away if Bush had met with her again.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"To keep the professional politicians far far away from any decisions that are life and death, since they only care about their own a$$es and being re-elected. "

We tried to get rid of Carl Rove, it didn't stick. [/quote]

Oh, that’s such a knee-slapper. Say, you think BL might have been referring to the politicians like Kerry or Clinton who sad Saddam was a danger, voted for the war and then back peddled from those comments and votes when the polls changed?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"To stop being so politically correct and concerned about minuscule day to day events, counting every death as if it were some sort of a scorecard in a football game, and to concentrate on the end game."

Yeah cause if there aren't 50,000 dead, it just doesn't count! [/quote]

IOW, we didn’t mean it when Kennedy said “bear any burden”. What we really meant was “hey, we were only joking”.

Does the MR stand for mister or mental retardation?

[quote=mranonymous2u]Truth be told, Saddam was our strongest ally in the middle east. [/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Well, aside from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Israel, the Saudis, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and most anyone else we had fought a war with and whose airspace we hadn’t patrolled for better than a decade, and whom we hadn’t worked to have the UN impose sanctions on….

 [quote=mranonymous2u]If we weren't in an all fired hurry to "avenge daddy's legacy" …[/quote]

(Cue Twilight Zone music, the “real reason” for the war is about to be exposed…)

[quote=mranonymous2u](One of my MANY opinions) there is no reason that we couldn't have brokered a deal with this religiously MODERATE (by middle eastern standards, liberal by mid west standards, Godless by West Texas standards) nation. [/quote]

You mean like the last “deal” for unrestricted UN weapons inspections?

I guess the problem is we just didn’t try hard enough to trust Saddam….

[quote=mranonymous2u] But I won't just swoon over the lies that have been told to us by this administration, and I'm underimpressed by persons who simply vomiturate the pablum fed to them by the administration. [/quote]

Uh, yeah, that’s it. It has nothing to do with your political orientation and the obvious lies from other sources you’re happy to swallow whole…

[quote=mranonymous2u]"WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. "

Not true, but then we had a Congress that was wasting the world's time with a witchhunt …[/quote]

Ah, I always love this one. It’s the “Clinton would have acted like a Commander in Chief and responded if the mean old Republicans hadn’t distracted him” gambit….

[quote=mranonymous2u]Not to mention that we also had issues in Haiti, Somalia (which George H Bush decided to spring on the nation at the very time he was a lame duck, it did take the focus off the FACT that he pardoned all of he witnesses against him in the Iran/Contra treason case he would have been named in.) and Bosnia. [/quote]

Where’s that Twilight Zone music again…. Haiti was Clinton’s own creation as was Bosnia (which came later, and when Clinton sent troops w/o UN approval and to the praise of those evil GOP types who were keeping him from fighting terrorism) , in Somalia Clinton changed the mission from feeding starving people to capturing war lords and ignoring the calls from commanders on the ground for the personnel and equipment required for that new mission.. and “Iran-Contra” gets in the mix too?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You STILL think Saddam had anything to do with Al Queda? Even the administration has shot this canard in the face! It was obviuos from the very start that this was a lie.[/quote]

Here we go again..the twisting of the facts from "no command and control agreement" or "no operational control" to "had nothing to do with"... the bi-partisan Senate investigation and the 9/11 Commision BOTH said there was an AQ/Saddam link.

Airforce,

Yes, I understand that Saddam was persona non grata post Desert Storm. Give me a little credit and you'll understand a lot more of what I mean. If you're going to think that every letter I type is part of a elaborate plan to trip you up, it'll be tougher for us to understand each other.

There was no significant terrorism coming out of Iraq. Saddam was a guy on the figurative ballz of his azz. He was an ironfisted cult of fear and personality that held his country together through years of a siege reality. To him the only diety that meant anything was Saddam. It would have taken a little doing, but we could easily have turned him in exchange for lifting the sanctions. Again, nothing we haven't done before, many times.

I always felt it was a failing of the Clinton administration that he didn't work towards normalized relations with Saddam.

I don't think Saddam was a great guy, or even a good guy (he was less bad than The Shah of Iran), He was a tyrant! But who can you trust in the Middle East now? Saudi Arabia? They're not bad as shopkeepers, but they are not a country we could stage wars from. Iran?  Syria? No one else comes close in terms of land mass we'd need.

As to the legalities in the Clinton White House, I said "AROUND a $60,000 real estate loss" the other issues were part of this investigation. It doesn't really matter what the investigations were about, the fact was that they took up time, energy  and political capital (the true target) that ought have been better used for the benefit of the Union.

"The thing I think is amusing is how you label yourself as a Liberal Democrat, and then you squeal about us making assumptions when we attack certain of your positions."

You are free to attack MY positions. You are not free to assign me positions based upon your perceptions of Liberal Democrats. I'm not here to answer for other democrats. I judge the people here only by what they have written here, not by some position that some other so called Conservative espouses.

Fair Enough?

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I always felt it was a failing of the Clinton administration that he didn't work towards normalized relations with Saddam. [/quote]

Gee, I wonder why he thought normalized relations were out for the question...

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADDRESS

--------

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

As to the legalities in the Clinton White House, I said “AROUND a $60,000 real estate loss” the other issues were part of this investigation. It doesn’t really matter what the investigations were about, the fact was that they took up time, energy  and political capital (the true target) that ought have been better used for the benefit of the Union.

Mr. A

You're obfuscating again Joe. And misquoting.

I'm sure you think you're charming and eriudite, the wittiest of them all.

A ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!

You're this ll far from scroll troll.

That'd be too bad, I had higher hopes for you.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You’re obfuscating again Joe. And misquoting.

I'm sure you think you're charming and eriudite, the wittiest of them all.

A ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!

You're this ll far from scroll troll.

That'd be too bad, I had higher hopes for you.

Mr. A