Protest of War IS Putting Our Troops in Danger!

[Archangelwolf]

For 4 years, we have heard that protesting this war would be detrimental to our troops. You know what? They are right!

Due to the protesting of this war, and the election of a Democratic Congress to oppose and provide oversight over a corrupt Republican Executive, some truth to the cover-up of this war is now surfacing. When it becomes clear that the American government fabricated lies and information to legitimize the invasion of another foreign country; we are going to have "egg on our face" to the rest of the world.

Regardless of whether we are Democrat or Republican, pro-war or anti-war, hawk or dove, this is going to have ramifications for a long time in our relations with the rest of the world. Our troops, the tools that this administration has used to fight this illegitimate war, are going to feel the brunt of this. Tourists from America who go abroad; they will also feel it.

The defenders of this Administration are right! Protesting this war is bringing about truth; and this truth will become detrimental to the safety of our men and women in uniform. The Bush/Cheney/Rove/Wolfowitz coalition has put our troops' lives and respect in danger; and the protests of this war is bringing this to fruition.

God protect our troops; and God forgive America!

[InterestedParty]

Baloney.

What truth to what coverup is now surfacing? Details please with data to back it up.

[USMC the Almighty]

some truth to the cover-up of this war is now surfacing.

Like what? How 'bout instead of throwing out wild accusations without any examples, you attempt to substantiate these fallacious claims.

When it becomes clear that the American government fabricated lies and information to legitimize the invasion of another foreign country; we are going to have "egg on our face" to the rest of the world.

I don't intend to sound ignorant, but who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I don't elect my President to makes up popular to the rest of the world. I elect him to protect and preserve the interests of this country. Screw France, Russia, China, Germany, and the entire Middle East.

Our troops, the tools that this administration has used to fight this illegitimate war...

Please elaborate on why this war is "illegitimate" in your eyes. Let me provide you with some justification for this "illegal" war:

1.) Saddam was in violation of 17 UNSC resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.
2.) Bush believed Saddam had WMDs because international intel did.
3.) British Intel still stands behind the yellowcake story
4.) Saddam had working relationships with various terrorists (Abu Nidal) and terror groups (Palestinians). Ansar al Islam is an Al Qaeda branch that was allowed to operate in Iraq by Saddam for the purpose of suppressing the Kurds (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-nidal/)
(http://www.husseinandterror.com/)
5.) Saddam at one time did have WMDs and retained the infrastructure necessary for creating his WMDs
6.) He had "training" facilities at Salman Pak for "counter terrorism"
7.) Iraq a former State Dept "Sponsor of Terrorism" sits between the two most active "sponsors of terrorism" Syria and Iran.
8. ) the invasion plan was brilliant and was accomplished in less than a month
9.) the post invasion plan has been successful in many areas(new schools, rebuilding infrastructure) but down right abysmal from a peace and security standpoint.

I could go on all day.

My opinion: I think they got caught looking ahead to Iran and dropped the ball... on the post invasion planning...I believe the plan was to already be in Tehran and have Syria expel the terrorist camped out in Damascus. One little hitch ...the terrorist joined forces with the Sunnis to create the insurgency...they should have seen it coming

...yes Bush is fighting a PC war, tied the hands of our military and made mistakes but SOME and the loudest of the democrats "voted for the war before they voted against it" and their obstruction since the day after the vote for the war has done nothing but embolden the enemy and European criticism. The criticism has hurt the position of some of our allies in Europe. Had the Dems kept some of this stuff behind closed doors where it belonged (because this is a war) and showed a unified front to the world then I believe Bush would have been bolder in the post war decision making, the French and Germans would have held their tongue, we may have had more support out of NATO and Europe, more troops from other countries, and would be further down the road to success not just in Iraq but N Korea, Iran , Lebanon, and Syria. Now that they have ascended to power lets see how they fare on defending the world which is necessary to maintaining the American way of life.

I don’t have my prayer rug yet, don’t care to grow a beard, don’t want to pray 5 times a day, and don’t want to learn Arabic but I am looking forward to having 4 or 5 women answering to my every beck and call, no nagging, no back talking, and *** when I WANT IT.



The defenders of this Administration are right! Protesting this war is bringing about truth; and this truth will become detrimental to the safety of our men and women in uniform. The Bush/Cheney/Rove/Wolfowitz coalition has put our troops' lives and respect in danger; and the protests of this war is bringing this to fruition.

God protect our troops; and God forgive America!

Our country is facing the most difficult choice in its history. Are we going to find the solution or just argue over the cause of the problem? Terrorist and terrorism are fatal for the entire planet.

[InterestedParty]

I don’t have my prayer rug yet, don’t care to grow a beard, don’t want to pray 5 times a day, and don’t want to learn Arabic but I am looking forward to having 4 or 5 women answering to my every beck and call, no nagging, no back talking, and *** when I WANT IT.


:eek:

:p

*lol*

I know it isn't funny but I have to admit, you had me laughing with this one.

God Bless your heart USMC....

(I am still trying to figure out what the *** stands for though) I'm afraid to ask.

;)

[USMC the Almighty]

:eek:

:p

*lol*

I know it isn't funny but I have to admit, you had me laughing with this one.

God Bless your heart USMC....

Thank you ma'am.

(I am still trying to figure out what the *** stands for though) I'm afraid to ask.

;)

It starts with "s" and rhymes with "T-Rex".

[simex]

For 4 years, we have heard that protesting this war would be detrimental to our troops. You know what? They are right!

Due to the protesting of this war, and the election of a Democratic Congress to oppose and provide oversight over a corrupt Republican Executive, some truth to the cover-up of this war is now surfacing. When it becomes clear that the American government fabricated lies and information to legitimize the invasion of another foreign country; we are going to have "egg on our face" to the rest of the world.

Regardless of whether we are Democrat or Republican, pro-war or anti-war, hawk or dove, this is going to have ramifications for a long time in our relations with the rest of the world. Our troops, the tools that this administration has used to fight this illegitimate war, are going to feel the brunt of this. Tourists from America who go abroad; they will also feel it.

The defenders of this Administration are right! Protesting this war is bringing about truth; and this truth will become detrimental to the safety of our men and women in uniform. The Bush/Cheney/Rove/Wolfowitz coalition has put our troops' lives and respect in danger; and the protests of this war is bringing this to fruition.

God protect our troops; and God forgive America!

No - sending your troops to get shot at for no particular reason is putting them in danger.

[USMC the Almighty]

No - sending your troops to get shot at for no particular reason is putting them in danger.

No particular cause? In addition to that 100 other reasons I've posted that justify going in to Iraq when we did, I'll give you the four overarching reasons:

(1) Bring freedom and democracy to people currently suffering under an oppressive regime.

(2) Sever ties between Saddam and the terrorists responsible for threatening and attacking our country (and yours).

(3) Alleviate threat posed by Saddam's WMD's.

(4) Bring stability to region torn by war through creating a functioning democracy as a City Upon a Hill.

[simex]

(1) um... freedom? How many civillians have died since the invasion. Several 9/11s worth. But how many Amercans care if a few thousand innocent Iraqis get slaughtered?

(2) Even if this was a real threat, this was the stupidist, dumbest way to go about removing it.

(3) There weren't any - do you read the news?

(4) Stability! Ha (see previous irony comment)

[USMC the Almighty]

(1) um... freedom? How many civillians have died since the invasion. Several 9/11s worth. But how many Amercans care if a few thousand innocent Iraqis get slaughtered?

Hey Monday Morning Quarterback, I said these were the reasons for initially going in to Iraq. Obviously things didn't turn out as planned but these were certainly just causes -- not only for humanitarian purposes but also American interests.

Anyhow, how many civilians were killed in Saddam's genocide of Iranians, Kurds, and Shi'ites? Way more than have been killed in Iraq (probably around 40-60k). More importantly however, is how you define a civilian. If it's anyone not enlisted in the military -- then the damn people shooting at us are civilians. You see Iraq is not like any other war where the enemy wears a uniform, has military bases, etc. Instead they bury their infrastructure in mosques, hospitals, civilian cities, etc. with the express intention of stirring up outrage over "civilian" casualties. They are using "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) like yourself for their own propaganda purposes.

And lastly, how many of these "civilians" were even killed by Americans? It's impossible to tell. Those who try to simply estimate from their plush hotels in the GZ.

(2) Even if this was a real threat, this was the stupidist, dumbest way to go about removing it.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-nidal/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

How would you suggest going about it?

(3) There weren't any - do you read the news?

Well we know he had WMD's because he used them. We just never found the nukes that we believed (and I still believe he transported to Syria).

In 2002, when the inspectors and possibly Americans were coming he took advantage of a natural disaster in Syria (dam broke) and he transported them by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft.

(4) Stability! Ha (see previous irony comment)

http://131.84.1.90/iraq/rebuilding.html

Making progress. Guerilla wars take an average of 8-11 years. Patience.

[Archangelwolf]

Saddam was in violation of 17 UNSC resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.

So? America, under this administration, has rejected several of its previous agreements and treaties. The one's affecting Global Warming could be even more of a threat to this world than any weapons resolutions on Iraq.

2.) Bush believed Saddam had WMDs because international intel did.

Correction! Bush believed Saddam had WMD's because fabricated intelligence, under the command of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, said he did.

3.) British Intel still stands behind the yellowcake story.

Oh, I'm sorry! I guess that makes it true.

4.) Saddam had working relationships with various terrorists (Abu Nidal) and terror groups (Palestinians). Ansar al Islam is an Al Qaeda branch that was allowed to operate in Iraq by Saddam for the purpose of suppressing the Kurds (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/cr...sts/abu-nidal/)
(http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

Reaching! Saddam Hussein had no tie with 9/11. That was the reason QUOTED for going after him.

5.) Saddam at one time did have WMDs and retained the infrastructure necessary for creating his WMDs

At one time? Amazing! That is like convicting someone of being a serial killer because they have bullets in the bedroom drawer.

6.) He had "training" facilities at Salman Pak for "counter terrorism"

So does Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia? Sorry, that excuse is lame.

7.) Iraq a former State Dept "Sponsor of Terrorism" sits between the two most active "sponsors of terrorism" Syria and Iran.

Oh, great! So why don't we just go to war with the whole Middle East?

8. ) the invasion plan was brilliant and was accomplished in less than a month

Are you serious? In this impoverished nation, what were they going to do? Throw rocks at us? Yea, great military planning!

9.) the post invasion plan has been successful in many areas(new schools, rebuilding infrastructure) but down right abysmal from a peace and security standpoint.

Yea, because we might as well build places for them to blow up BEFORE we establish peace.

(1) Bring freedom and democracy to people currently suffering under an oppressive regime.

This excuse is the WORST. Africa has been ravaged by oppressive regimes for decades, and Cuba, right on our doorstep, is in poverty. Yet, we choose Iraq to liberate? Give me a break. This excuse is absolutely asinine.

(2) Sever ties between Saddam and the terrorists responsible for threatening and attacking our country (and yours).

OK, to use THIS excuse, we need to start invasions of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, need I go on? Sorry, I am not falling for it.

(3) Alleviate threat posed by Saddam's WMD's.

Ummmm.....what WMD's? Oh, yeah! He had bullets in his bedroom drawer. Sorry, forgot!

(4) Bring stability to region torn by war through creating a functioning democracy as a City Upon a Hill.

This City on a Hill crap is so old it stinks. We are not a City on a Hill. We are the Bully on a Hill. We have directly and indirectly overthrown up to 20 democratic-leaning regimes in the last 100+ years because they were not sympathetic to the interests of American corporations. Our foreign policy is more of a threat to democracy than any terrorist. Don't believe me? Ask Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, Korea (both), Iran, Grenada, even Hawaii, to name just a few.

City on a Hill my ass!

Arch.

[InterestedParty]

Hey Arch....

I'm sill waiting for the documentation to the "truth to the cover-up of this war is now surfacing" claim that you made in the initial post to this thread. How about it?

I'd also like to respond to a number of your most recent statements.


4.) Reaching! Saddam Hussein had no tie with 9/11. That was the reason QUOTED for going after him.


Never, not once has our government or the present Administration made the claim that Iraq was directly involved in what happened on 9/11. I challenge you to *show us all proof* of your claim that Iraq was ever linked to 9/11 by the present Administration. It does not exist. Please show us the quotes that you claim exist.

What the President did say was, "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

He went onto say, and please pay particular attention to his words, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/


5.) At one time? Amazing! That is like convicting someone of being a serial killer because they have bullets in the bedroom drawer.


Bullets in the bedroom drawer? No, the proof that Saddam had WMD were found laying in mass graves scattered around Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of his victims. And.... we didn't convict him, the Iraqi's convicted him.


(2) Sever ties between Saddam and the terrorists responsible for threatening and attacking our country (and yours).

OK, to use THIS excuse, we need to start invasions of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, need I go on? Sorry, I am not falling for it.


No we don't. The extremists have brought the fight right to us inside Iraq.


(3) Alleviate threat posed by Saddam's WMD's.

Ummmm.....what WMD's? Oh, yeah! He had bullets in his bedroom drawer. Sorry, forgot!


Now this comment made by you should be clasified as asinine. He had bullets in his bedroom drawer? That is the worst you feel that Saddam had or did? How can you decry anything about what is happening anyhere else in the world yet minimize what happened in Iraq for decades?

Right now Arch, ass is one word I would use loosely if I were you.

[USMC the Almighty]

Our foreign policy is more of a threat to democracy than any terrorist.

I was going to respond with an intelligent, well-thought out, well-substantiated post, but after reading this little gem, it's just easier to call you an idiot.

[Vlad]

No name calling please.

[USMC the Almighty]

No name calling please.

My apologies.

[Vlad]

My apologies.

No problem. :)

[Archangelwolf]

I am not going to do this. There have been COUNTLESS claims, by Bush, by Condoleeza Rice, by Colin Powell, by Dick Cheney, that there was a CONFIRMED link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in 9/11.

You want to doubt me; be my guest. I am not going to lose sleep because you live in Never Never Land.

This war is WRONG. We invaded another country on fabricated intelligence to lie the American people into supporting an illegitimate war. This administration makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln. At least Nixon's abuses of power did not cost over 3000 troops.

Forget it. Go stand in front of the mirror, pat yourself on the head, and tell yourself what a good conservative you are. Tell yourself how wonderful Bush is for forcing us into this war.

Meanwhile, I will continue to support the Democratic Congress in getting us out of there.

Back in 1952, another candidate campaigned on bringing the troops home from an unpopular war. He won the election, and within 6 months, the troops were home. We need more leaders like Dwight Eisenhower.

Arch.

[Archangelwolf]

I cite Hawaii, the Phillippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. All of these countries had nationalistic regimes, hoping to better their own constituents with a potentially democratic government. Because of greedy corporate interests, these regimes were overthrown, either directly or indirectly by the United States.

Do you deny that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden came to power with American money?

I wish I, too, could live in Never Never Land.

Arch.

[InterestedParty]

I am not going to do this. There have been COUNTLESS claims, by Bush, by Condoleeza Rice, by Colin Powell, by Dick Cheney, that there was a CONFIRMED link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in 9/11.

You want to doubt me; be my guest. I am not going to lose sleep because you live in Never Never Land.

This war is WRONG. We invaded another country on fabricated intelligence to lie the American people into supporting an illegitimate war. This administration makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln. At least Nixon's abuses of power did not cost over 3000 troops.

Forget it. Go stand in front of the mirror, pat yourself on the head, and tell yourself what a good conservative you are. Tell yourself how wonderful Bush is for forcing us into this war.

Meanwhile, I will continue to support the Democratic Congress in getting us out of there.
Arch.

You are not going to do it because you can't. Any documentation confirming your accusations does not exist. Insult me any way you want. Deny all that I am saying, but the truth is you cannot produce one shred of evidence that President Bush ever linked Iraq to 9/11. Not one.


Back in 1952, another candidate campaigned on bringing the troops home from an unpopular war. He won the election, and within 6 months, the troops were home. We need more leaders like Dwight Eisenhower.


You know, I can overlook the fact that you may not know history as well as you think you do. What I can't overlook is you elevating Eisenhower to some level of a example of glorious leadership who cared about the men serving in the military during his Presidency.

My family has shed its fair share of tears over what Eisenhower agreed to in regards to bringing our troops home after the Korean Conflict. Let me offer you these tid bits of information. Oh and by the way, I'll give you documentation to back up my claims. Eisenhower INTENTIONALLY LEFT up to 5000 of our men behind in North Korea and the USSR all because he wanted a "honorable armistice" with the North Koreans, Chinese and Russians. I should know, my Uncle was one of the soldiers left behind.

The 5000 number figure-Read the section titled Investigation in Progress located at

http://aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

It is the Senate Select Committee website for POW/MIA's

Eisenhowers role as President during the Korean Conflict is located at

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH-V2/AMH%20V2/chapter8.htm

You will see page numbers for each secton. Scoll down to page 244 and 245.

Finally, read the testimony of Retired Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso to the Senate Select Committee on November 10, 1992 where he testifies that along with Eisenhower, he agrees to ignore and hide the fact that there were still known POW's alive and in the custody of the North Koreans and their allies.

Scroll down to Testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso, USA, Ret. about 3/4's of the way down the page.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

And.... to put the icing on the cake, you should read about the
"sightings" of POW's decades after the Korean Conflict ended.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40816FC3E5D0C728EDDAF0894DE494D 81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fK% 2fKorean%20War

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1EFA355D0C7A8DDDAE0894DE494D 81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fK% 2fKorean%20War

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFD91439F936A35756C0A9609582 60&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fE%2f Eisenhower%2c%20Dwight%20David

How about this;

House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Statement of Donna Downes Knox
Korean/Cold War Family Association of the Missing

http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/knox.html


I could give you numerous links to access, but these should suffice.

Eisenhower was the worst example you could have used. He was a traitor to the men who servd our country in the 1950's.

[USMC the Almighty]

I am not going to do this. There have been COUNTLESS claims, by Bush, by Condoleeza Rice, by Colin Powell, by Dick Cheney, that there was a CONFIRMED link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in 9/11.

Bush famously remarked that he is aware there was no link between Saddam and 9/11 -- however, there certainly is a link between Iraq and terrorists. We would not be able to fight the terrorists in Iraq with Saddam still in power. Just like the Civil War. Lincoln realized that he couldn't preserve a single Union with the institution of slavery. So he emancipated the ones in the CSA.

This war is WRONG. We invaded another country on fabricated intelligence to lie the American people into supporting an illegitimate war.

I feel like I'm going in circles with you. There was no fabricated intelligence. He thought Saddam had nukes (I still think he does) in Iraq. EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs at the time. All international intel, and all of your beloved Democrats.

You libs can't have it both ways. If Bush lied, fabricated, and misled the American public, then so did all of these people:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. - Henry Taxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weep on stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


This administration makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln. At least Nixon's abuses of power did not cost over 3000 troops.

Oh the irony. Of all the presidents, you chose Lincoln for your comparison. He was like President Bush squared. He actually lied and misled, he suspended habeas corpus, he did all the things that Presidents have the right to do in time of war and that's why he emerged as on of our greatest presidents.

Forget it. Go stand in front of the mirror, pat yourself on the head, and tell yourself what a good conservative you are. Tell yourself how wonderful Bush is for forcing us into this war.

Meanwhile, I will continue to support the Democratic Congress in getting us out of there.

Of yeah -- they're "nonbinding resolutions" are really solving a lot of problems.

Back in 1952, another candidate campaigned on bringing the troops home from an unpopular war. He won the election, and within 6 months, the troops were home. We need more leaders like Dwight Eisenhower.

Oh the irony. He pulled out of Korea and was also incidentally the first president to send troops to Vietnam.

You should really sharpen up on your history.

[USMC the Almighty]

I cite Hawaii, the Phillippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. All of these countries had nationalistic regimes, hoping to better their own constituents with a potentially democratic government.

Democratic gov'ts? Hahahaha.

I sure wish I could live in Never Never Land like yourself.

Because of greedy corporate interests, these regimes were overthrown, either directly or indirectly by the United States.

Greedy corporate interests!! Hahaha. This is great stuff Arch, keep it coming.

[Archangelwolf]

Hawaii was REJECTED by Grover Cleveland, and annexed under the administration of William McKinley (a Republican).

The Phillippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, all these incidents occurred under Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft (also Republicans).

The coup in Iran occurred under Eisenhower (a Republican).

Who is revising history now?

There is a reason that military do not make final decisions on foreign policy. That would be like giving our foreign policy to a bunch of government-sanctioned Timothy McVeigh's. After all, all those innocent Iraqis killed are considered "collateral damage."

Arch.

[Archangelwolf]

Dick Cheney, in an interview with I forget which news channel, said that there were CONFIRMED links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I watched it myself on television; because, at the time, I believed him.

He lied; as have so many others.

Arch.

[USMC the Almighty]

Dick Cheney, in an interview with I forget which news channel, said that there were CONFIRMED links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I watched it myself on television; because, at the time, I believed him.

He lied; as have so many others.

Arch.

And Cheney was right (AQI: Al Zarqawi, Al Zawhiri, Abu Nidal....). Let's pretend he was wrong, however, why do you automatically assume that he lied? Why could it have not been an honest mistake. So I presume that you think all the Democrats who voted for the war, stated that Saddam possessed WMDs, posed an imminent threat, and should be removed all lied to the American people too? Why do you only blame the Republicans, then?

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-nidal/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_documents
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

I also thought you might enjoy these:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4096298858724452970&q=Zarqawi+airstrike

[Archangelwolf]

I don't just blame the Republicans. Trust me; I hold the entire government accountable for this blunder.

However, the Democrats are now admitting to the mistake (and some Republicans as well-17 voted for the Resolution); and they are trying to correct it.

The truth is, and I blame 9/11 on this as well, the CIA, FBI, and other enforcement agencies have always been in a pissing contest for as long as we can remember. One thing that I APPLAUD Bush for is the umbrella National Security Administration. It is about time that our agencies begin sharing information with each other. Had this been the case before 9/11; it might not have ever happened. However, it is not Bush's fault, Clinton's fault, or anyone else's fault. It is due to the complacent climate we had in regards to sharing information, or a better word for it could be communication.

I work for a State department in Texas. I understand completely the value of communication; and I have seen firsthand what happens when there is a lack of it. 9/11 was the worst-case scenario for this, and unfortunately proved the complexity of our problem.

Arch.

[simex]

Hey Monday Morning Quarterback, I said these were the reasons for initially going in to Iraq. Obviously things didn't turn out as planned but these were certainly just causes -- not only for humanitarian purposes but also American interests.

Anyhow, how many civilians were killed in Saddam's genocide of Iranians, Kurds, and Shi'ites? Way more than have been killed in Iraq (probably around 40-60k). More importantly however, is how you define a civilian. If it's anyone not enlisted in the military -- then the damn people shooting at us are civilians. You see Iraq is not like any other war where the enemy wears a uniform, has military bases, etc. Instead they bury their infrastructure in mosques, hospitals, civilian cities, etc. with the express intention of stirring up outrage over "civilian" casualties. They are using "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) like yourself for their own propaganda purposes.

And lastly, how many of these "civilians" were even killed by Americans? It's impossible to tell. Those who try to simply estimate from their plush hotels in the GZ.



http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-nidal/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

How would you suggest going about it?



Well we know he had WMD's because he used them. We just never found the nukes that we believed (and I still believe he transported to Syria).

In 2002, when the inspectors and possibly Americans were coming he took advantage of a natural disaster in Syria (dam broke) and he transported them by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft.



http://131.84.1.90/iraq/rebuilding.html

Making progress. Guerilla wars take an average of 8-11 years. Patience.

Iraq, at the time of invasion, was not a threat. Why? Because it was a defeated nation. American paranoia, like with Vietnam, led to it believing there was a real threat where there was none.

[USMC the Almighty]

Iraq, at the time of invasion, was not a threat. Why? Because it was a defeated nation. American paranoia, like with Vietnam, led to it believing there was a real threat where there was none.

Maybe not. At any rate, the terrorists inside Iraq were a threat.

[InterestedParty]

Iraq, at the time of invasion, was not a threat.

That is not a true statement. Was the United States or Great Britain under a direct threat from Saddam Hussein at the time of the invasion? No.

Prior to the invasion was Saddam funding terrorists activities outside of Iraqs borders? Yes.

Why? Because it was a defeated nation.

As long as there was any activity coming from Saddams regime to promote terrorist activity *anywhere* the threat existed and Iraq was not a defeated nation.

Should the United States, Great Britain and their allies refrained from extinguishing the potential future threat that Saddam posed? Or do you deal with any threat, regardless of its significance, when it presents itself?

American paranoia,

If you are going to claim it was paranoia on my countries part that led us into Iraq, are you going to say your country was just as paranoid? Unless you haven't heard, we didn't go into Iraq alone.


like with Vietnam, led to it believing there was a real threat where there was none.

This is the first time I have ever heard that the United States ever considered Vietnam a threat to us. We went into Vietnam to help the South Vietnamese preserve their liberty from comunism and because the French were not getting the job done on their own. It had nothing to do with paranoia. It had to do with coming to the aid of an ally *and* the US concluded that what had been a colonial war in Indochina became another example of expansive world-wide communism, directed by the Kremlin. True or false Simex? True.

In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers. By 1954, the U.S. had given 300,000 small arms and machine guns, and one billion dollars to support the French military effort and was shouldering 80 percent of its cost. The Viet Minh eventually handed the French a major military defeat at Ðiện Biên Phủ on 7 May 1954 and the French public and government had had enough. In 1956, MAAG assumed responsibility for training the Vietnamese army.

Too Bad we didn't know then what we know now about France and being allies. Ironically the French left. Imagine that.

As for "losing" in Vietnam. We were defeated in Vietnam, yes, but it had nothing to do with any military campaign. The Vietnam War was lost right here in the United States. The truth is, There are actually people in the world who know about the Vietnam war. That includes almost no Americans. We prefer not to think about Vietnam, so we haven't learned from it.

There was a completely winnable war in which we lost no major battles, in which the guerilla fighters (the Viet Cong) were utterly destroyed as a fighting force early in 1968, never to be rebuilt, and yet we lost. How? Diem had announced that he would fight until we got tired of it and went home, and he proceeded to do so. It really didn't matter who won on the battlefield as long as the NVA won on the US TV screen. After the Tet battles of 1968, the Viet Cong were destroyed as a fighting force and the NVA were significantly weakened. Walter Cronkite announced that we were lost, and Johnson said that if Cronkite said so, then the American people were lost. That is, Cronkite's analysis was completely wrong but his conclusion was right, because it was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Our adversaries have learned this lesson, and the majority of the American public hasn't. Bush has, he repeats it daily to the public and to Congress. Those with political agenda's are ignoring it. There is no way we could possibly be beaten militarily. The military can handle Iraq. What they can't do is handle public opinion at home, which is where the war will be won or lost.

[USMC the Almighty]

Very well put, Interested. That's why we need a troop surge. Not only for the obvious practical benefits of having more boots on the ground, but it also shows the terrorists and insurgents that we're in this thing for the long haul -- until one side or the other wins and they know that no one can defeat the U.S. militarily, especially not by using guerilla tactics.

[marilynj55]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17270.htm

[Rokerijdude11]

interesting buried post