George Bush

[Jennie@ifish]

I DON'T want to start another terrible thread...

But why can't George Bush answer any questions directly?

It seems to me he totally dodges questions that are asked about prospects of peace.

???

Jen

[speyfly]

Hi Jenn, I am asking myself the same question. God knows I love this country! :smile:

[CATCH AND EAT]

Jen, have you ever known any, I say any politition that can give you a straight answer????? Neither Republican nor Democrat can defend that statement.

Just look at the bills that are passed by state and federal governments. "Oh we will used this road tax to fix the roads", while in fine print a percentage goes to set up a new dump for some city. See what I mean.

I think the voter guides should have this sign. [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

[Fish-n-Fever]

First of all he is a politician

2nd...With his do as I say when I say Super Power attitude he has placed his (and in turn, our) back against a wall.

3rd... If he did answer the questions honestly and directly he would have to parrot the answers for those that believe War should be at this point in time (without the world support we so desperately need) a last resort.

4th...Simply because he doesn't have to, and that is to me the scariest part of all of this.

Ron

[Jennie@ifish]

It's just frustrating to me.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about the war and peace, but I wish he'd just tell us where we are, what we are going to do, and explain why with more direct answers.

He seems so hell bent on war... Maybe he knows more than he is saying?

But why can't he answer the peace oriented questions with as much fact back up, as he does the why war questions?

Jen

[Fish-n-Fever]

He seems so hell bent on war... Maybe he knows more than he is saying?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">IMHO
I honestly think if He or anyone in his Admin knows more than the average Joe and that information would sway the world over to his side, he would have shared that not with us, average Joes but at least with the world leaders that now oppose war at this time.
Don't you think?

Ron

[toonboater]

The Bush administration has planned this war...er...a...Swat operation for months and that's that. It's a war that they know they can win like a Granada or Panama. Bush continues to try convince the American people that it's the right thing to do so he can look like a hero. It's politics pure and simple. Watch out Jen, this web site is vulnerable. Remember. Yer either with us or agin' us.

[GutshotApe]

I believe George Bush is an honest man....and he believes, as he said tonight, that while war has a high cost, not dealing with Saddam Hussein, and soon, carries a potentially higher cost.

When I was in the Navy I was the secret materials custodian for my ship's ops. dept. and saw a lot of stuff and read a lot of reports that never made the news and the public never heard about. As CinC, Bush has access to much, much more information and data than the type & level of material I saw. Tons more, and much of it is classified and too sensitive to release to the public. If he says Iraq poses a direct threat to the USA, then you'd better believe it. I do. I'm sure we will know a lot more after Hussein is hunted down and killed or he takes the President's suggestion and leaves Iraq.

The ball is clearly in Hussein's court. All Americans should now support the President.....you'll get answers to your questions in due course. :smile:

[toonboater]

Saddam has got the ultimate WMD that Bush is not telling us about...the much dreaded attack camel. :smile: Had to lighten this up. Let's go fishing.

[ 03-06-2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: toonboater ]

[Thumper]

The answer is simple --- anthrax. I can give you a dozen scenarios that would scare you to death. Saddam has BW agents and we are at direct risk. They are easy to deliver, and we know how that can be done with a minimum of technology.

It takes about 50 gallons of culture product, a nebulizer and a Honda generator located on a ship in a western United States port. I could make it all in about one month if I had the mobile lab that Saddam apparently has. Obviously George Bush and Colin Powell are terrified in the certain knowledge that this weapon is on-hand.

Please let our leaders do their jobs. Millions of American lives will be saved.

[The Fishing Geek]

GutShotApe:

You believe that George Bush is an honest man? I'm going to take exception to that one. That's a very blind leap of faith there. I'd be happy to list several things that he has said in the past that would show that he is NOT an honest man, if you would like. From his relationship with Kenneth Lay to his failure to report insider trading to the SEC, Mr. Bush has shown many times that he is not an honest man.

[CAGEY]

If you remember, we did not deal with North Korea(1953) when we should have. Now look where we are at. North Korea is a very very dangerous country to deal with. I know first hand as i dealt with them for a year and thats when they still lived in the stone age. They still do, only their arrows can now reach all of their neighbors and the experts say the west coast. Would they launch one on us??? In a heartbeat. Allowing the sadistic murderer Sadam to stay in power will create the exact same situation only far more dangerous to us. He has the money and is willing to spend it on weapons of mass destruction with the full intent to use them. He will someday hold the US and our allies hostage with his nuclear weapons. I hate the thought of our young men and women going to war but i personally think it is an absolute must. Dont mean to start trouble. I just think we need to stand together and rid the world of people like Sadam the Butcher.

[ 03-06-2003, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: CAGEY ]

[kisutch]

Originally posted by Jennie@ifish:
It's just frustrating to me.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about the war and peace, but I wish he'd just tell us where we are, what we are going to do, and explain why with more direct answers.

He seems so hell bent on war... Maybe he knows more than he is saying?

But why can't he answer the peace oriented questions with as much fact back up, as he does the why war questions?

Jen

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ditto, ditto, ditto. (My sister just made almost the exact same observations and questions when I was on the phone with her!)

I can understand that there are highly-sensitive details that we cannot and should not know about, but how about just some sound reasoning? Not the bland "we want to give Iraqis a taste of freedom" line or whatever [fill-in-the-blank] response we're being spoonfed.

It seems odd that we can broadcast our "plan" to attack with 10x the force of the Gulf War, yet the Prez cannot give us a definitive answer as to why. It's beyond me and it is so frustrating.

I guess all I can do is hope that he is right, that he knows something we don't and that someday it wil be revealed so that we can rest easily. Until then, I can't help but feel that is our duty, our obligation as free-thinking individuals to question, if not demand, why.

[speyfly]

Cagey, something really smells here with this war thing. Yes Saddam should be disarmed and that could be done without war.

With a very aggressive inspection process and with the support of the US, UN and Nato troops on the ground to make sure that the inspections take place when and where Saddam could be disarmed. Lets not forget that george says he knows where and how they are hiding the weapons.

This war is unnecessary by the world’s standards and I would think that with a world behind it, this could be done. I think that others have a different agenda than just disarming Saddam.

[kisutch]

Originally posted by CAGEY:
North Korea is a very very dangerous country to deal with... their arrows can now reach all of their neighbors and the experts say the west coast. Would they launch one on us??? In a heartbeat

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Cagey, your "TEAM DONUTS" made me smile. :smile: I think we can all use that. Especially right now. Particularly when talking about this tense subject.

I really like the tone/approach of your post. Very respectful and thoughtful and I admire that. I also respect and admire your service to our country and your insight from it.

I quote your post above because it seems like North Korea is a much greater threat and I wonder why we aren't focusing more on them (perhaps GW is really brilliant and is just making us all think is he going to attack Iraq when it is really NK we are going after, but I doubt it).

Since we have declared this "axis of evil", how are we supposed to deal with it? How are we supposed to fund it???

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
GutShotApe: You believe that George Bush is an honest man? I'm going to take exception to that one.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Geek, I believe he's telling the truth now....yup, a certain amount of blind faith is involved, I guess, but I don't see any realistic rationale or motivation for Bush to be doing this for any other than the right reasons.

[thankful]

It is easy to speak on one own terms, but imagine being the head man and speaking for the whole country and doing what is best for the nation. Mr Bush is my president and and my commander in chief and I support him and whoever becomes president come next election, he would be my president and my commander in chief. I love my country and I support whoevers elected and in charge. I will not do anything that would jeapordize the stability of our nation or give fuel to any nation that is hostile to us and make them think that all they have to do is sit back and let us destroy ourselves. God bless the USA!

[Boedy]

Originally posted by speyfly:
Cagey, something really smells here with this war thing. Yes Saddam should be disarmed and that could be done without war.

With a very aggressive inspection process and with the support of the US, UN and Nato troops on the ground to make sure that the inspections take place when and where Saddam could be disarmed. Lets not forget that george says he knows where and how they are hiding the weapons.

This war is unnecessary by the world’s standards and I would think that with a world behind it, this could be done. I think that others have a different agenda than just disarming Saddam.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He have been trying to for 12 years and he still hasn’t complied what makes you think he will now. What make you think the UN could or would step in and insure it? 17 resolutions have not made him comply what makes you think another 20 will?

What a foolish assumption and just what Saddam is hoping for. He has strung out the world for the last 12 years and he is counting on you to help him get another 12 years to stockpile his weapons. Maybe Saddam will send you an Iraqi medal Spyfly for all the hard work you put in on his side. To bad you don’t show that loyalty to your own country or the same benefit of doubt to your own President.

[lost_sailor]

Bush is a puppet, he can only recite the words that are put in his mouth.

And, you get elected by telling everyone what they want to hear. Very challenging!

[speyfly]

[quote]Originally posted by Boedy:

He have been trying to for 12 years and he still hasn’t complied what makes you think he will now. What make you think the UN could or would step in and insure it? 17 resolutions have not made him comply what makes you think another 20 will?

What a foolish assumption and just what Saddam is hoping for. He has strung out the world for the last 12 years and he is counting on you to help him get another 12 years to stockpile his weapons. Maybe Saddam will send you an Iraqi medal Spyfly for all the hard work you put in on his side. To bad you don’t show that loyalty to your own country or the same benefit of doubt to your own President.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Come on Boedy, you’re telling me that if the US, UN and Nato had troops on the ground and an aggressive inspection process not limiting where and when the inspectors can inspect, with the so called information that george has stated that he has and all of our technology, this would not work. I think that you are really stretching to support your war.

I would think that if we are the great and mighty nation that you have professed we are we would want to at least try. This goes back to when george first stated that we were going to invade Iraq without going to the UN because we did not need the united worlds support (his in your face rhetoric). Because of the public out cry george thought that it would damage his political career . It’s called connecting the dots Boedy but I guess it may be too complicated for some to do that.

[crabbait]

A few observations:

-- What makes us think that attacking Iraq will bring "anthrax" or any of the other highly portable WMDs into our control? I would expect him to be dispersing these materials to whomever he thinks could cause the most damage with them after his demise. How will attacking him end this threat?

-- The cost of this war is now estimated at as high as a TRILLION dollars. Where is all this money going? Who stands to profit from this war? In the aftermath of this war who will be raking in the cash? Follow the money......

-- And finally, who did Our President's makeup for tonight's little chat? Tammy Faye Baker? He looked like they put it on with a spatula! And the eyeliner! I swear his hair was a couple of shades darker than I have seen in the past. What's up with that?

[ 03-06-2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[The Fishing Geek]

Anyone seen Darcelle lately? Maybe he's in DC?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally posted by crabbait:
A few observations:
who did Our President's makeup for tonight's little chat? Tammy Faye Baker? He looked like they put it on with a spatula! And the eyeliner! I swear his hair was a couple of shades darker than I have seen in the past. What's up with that?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Someone sounds a little jealous. :grin: We'll try to get you on Springer for one of those before and after sessions Steve. :tongue: Speaking of Springer, have ya caught one yet?

As for Saddam, has anyone noticed that it took a massive build up of troops for Saddam to even flinch at disarmment? Nothing for 12 years and now just a few days from war suddenly he has distroyed a couple of missles. What a load! This guy had, has no intention of complying with the UN, US, GB or any other initials you can think of with any kind of world clout.

There was one thing that I found interesting. Did you notice he has changed from WMD to Weapons of terror?

[ 03-07-2003, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[monoman]

Spey

How do you send US, UN and NATO troops in without starting a war. I don't believe Saddam would allow troops in.

[speyfly]

Mono, I really don't think that Saddam has a choice. Do you? Given his options he has no say in this. Sure would save a lot of innocent lives.

[monoman]

Once troops cross the border, you are at war. Who is to control the troops, the US would not send troops in without total control of its troops. People like the French would not send troops unless they had control, or the UN had total control without a US officer at the head of the force. We would not send our boys in with blue hats on under a French commander. This is what happens when all sides have dug in. Had we just gone in, without all the back and forth, we could have withdrawn easier and the blue hats could take over. Like many other options, they are in the past.

[ 03-07-2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: monoman ]

[CAGEY]

We can hash this out all day long and what will be will be. In reading all of the posts i find good sound arguments in each one. Do we really need to get Sadam out of power? Yes, and the sooner the better. Do we need to go to war to do it? Well from what i know about Sadam it would seem that he is a brutal sadistic leader who has his own agenda and it seems that war will be the only way to depose him. Can we wait a few day's? Yes we can and should do that. If waiting a few days would save just one of our young men or women then that option should be taken. Do i back our countries leaders? 101% Just remember, when this Iraq problem is settled then will come the Iran's, Korea's, etc. So be prepared to spend the rest of your life like you have never had to do befor. We are no longer, and will never again, live in a totally safe place that we americans have been used to for so long.

[foxer]

Cagey, well spoken [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[bigshark]

I received this today from a friend, I do not know who wrote it. I post it as something you may wish to consider.


March 3, 2003

Methinks the protestors protest too much

The worldwide antiwar movement hasn't accomplished much, but it has made George Bush and not Saddam Hussein the villain in certain European precincts. The demonstrators, who might have attacked Franklin D. Roosevelt instead of Adolf Hitler two generations ago, are looking through the wrong end of their binoculars. They're appealing to abstract notions of compassion instead of real issues of humanity.

Andrew Sullivan, the blogger columnist, gets it right. The war against Saddam Hussein, he writes, has taken on the contours of the culture wars. "Almost the whole academic class, the media elites, the college-educated urbanites, the entertainment industry and so on are now reflexively antiwar." The dogma is as inflexible and nondebatable as political correctness. And yet everything that Saddam Hussein stands for is an anathema to the people who make up these categories.

In Iraq there is no free speech. Amnesty International has carefully documented the torture of Iraqi women and children in the presence of their husbands, brothers and fathers. Iraqi dissidents are tortured with cigarette burns and electric shocks, and then murdered.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair are routinely derided on the posters and placards of demonstrators as "baby killers," but it was Saddam Hussein who gassed whole Kurdish families.. At least 100,000 Kurds were killed in 'near-genocidal" proportions, the first ethnic group since the Holocaust to be targeted for death by its own government. Most of the Kurds were not murdered by poison gas, writes Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker magazine, "rather the genocide was carried out, in large part, in the traditional manner, with roundups at night, mass executions, and anonymous burials."

In Amman, Jordan, where a number of dissident Iraqi exiles have fled, men show their scars from the regime's torture chambers. "The people who are protesting the war don't know what the regime is like," says one young man, showing cigarette burns on a shin and scars on neck and breast from a brutal whipping with a power-cable. He says to a reporter for the Village Voice: "You tell Bush my people are waiting for him."

The argument of the antiwar movement is for delay and containment, but since delay is really an argument for more delay, the movement is really about hating the president and the attitudes he represents. The Europeans resent our prosperity and power and show disdain for the "McCulture" they deride but can't get enough of. Recent public-opinion polls in Germany show that almost three-quarters of the Germans say America has "too much power," and more than half find us a greater threat to peace than either Iraq or North Korea.

Unlike the peaceniks of the Vietnam War era, the peaceniks so far show no sympathy or apology for Saddam Hussein; there is no cry similar to "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh; Ho Chi Minh Will Win." The demonstrators have appropriated only one memorable cliché from their parents: "Make Love, Not War."

There seems scant idealism among either the American and European demonstrators, no cries for "a better world." There's mostly a continual dump on Israel for not creating a Palestinian state, which has become an acceptable form of anti-Semitism. But if Saddam Hussein is nobody's friend, expecting him to change his ways is as naïve as it would have been to expect Hitler to have changed his in the 1930s. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now; war made the difference then and war will make the difference now.

It's always impossible to "prove" what will happen in the future. That's what Tony Blair meant when he said that no one would have believed a modern-day Jeremiah saying in August 2001 that an al-Qaida terrorist network would have to be destroyed and that the only way to do it was to invade Afghanistan: "Yet, my goodness," he says, "a few weeks later, thousands of people were killed in the streets of New York." When Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor, it felt the wrath of world opinion, but who's sorry about that now?

Bill Clinton correctly identified the evil of Saddam Hussein five years ago. He saw him as the leader of a "rogue state with the weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed." Too bad that all he did about Saddam was to give him more time.

More delay now in doing what nearly everyone agrees will have to be done sooner or later signals a deadly reluctance to deal not only with Saddam but future predators who will be - and maybe already are - gathering the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We can't see into the future, but we can learn from the past, if we only will.

[kisutch]

Saddam is no peach. I don't like the man. He's a torturous murderer. I just don't think war is going to remove him from power. Did it work last time? I don't understand why, if he's such a threat, we ever let it get to this point.

Meanwhile, we have human rights violations occurring all over the planet - God knows how many have suffered throughout the African continent and in China, yet continue to ignore that. Can we and should we police the entire planet? What about our problems at home?

[Boedy]

Bigshark,
Great post.
[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

But I see the leftist are already trying to advert attention away from the real issues and instead only point out that there are bad people all over so why go after this one, where’s the logic in that?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally posted by Speyfly "Boedy, you’re telling me that if the US, UN and Nato had troops on the ground and an aggressive inspection process not limiting where and when the inspectors can inspect, with the so called information that george has stated that he has and all of our technology, this would not work. I think that you are really stretching to support your war."

Did'nt we try a police action like this in Vietnam? Did'nt work then. I know, I know, different situtation different bad guy.

[ 03-07-2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[24 on/ 48 off]

With all the inspectors (plus more, if France has its way) in Iraq, how can they possibly use WMD's?

--spud-- :smile:

[speyfly]

Quote by C&E... "Did'nt we try a police action like this in Vietnam? Did'nt work then. I know, I know, different situtation different bad guy".

How old are you C&E and do you know anything about the war in SE Asia? It was LBJ's undeclared war. It's home work time for you.

[ 03-07-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by speyfly:
do you know anything about the war in SE Asia? It was LBJ's undeclared war.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually Speyfly, it began as Eisenhower's undeclared war. The first US casualties were about 1954 or '55. Then it became Kennedy's undeclared war and the buildup began. Then it was Johnson's undeclared war....and the buildup peaked at over 500,000 US troops. Then Nixon inherited the undeclared war.....and ended it for the US in 1973. South Vietnam fell to the communists in 1975 while the Carter admin., along with most Americans, studiously looked the other way. Each president had the approval and funding authorization of the US Congress - Vietnam can't be blamed on any president, Dim or Rep.

[speyfly]

Well GSA, you're right kinda. Things headed up when LBJ lied to the American people about the Gulf Of Tonkin incident (Aug. 5, 1964). So I will say that the war did belong to LBJ from that point on.

Guess we should get back on-topic.

[TheRogue]

$$$ in Bush's 03 budget for war with Iraq: $0.00

$$$ in Bush's 04 budget for war with Iraq: $0.00

$$$ in Bush's 04 budget for rebuilding Afghanistan: $0.00

$$$ in Bush's 04 budget for rebuilding Iraq: $0.00


Yup, we're really going to make a lot of friends now!! What ALWAYS happens in a post-war vacuum?? The bully with the most guns left in the country wins! Afghanistan is, in some ways, worse off now than before we went in...the various warlords beating each othere up, killing innocents in the process. All Bush's talk of democracy is going to go for not, if we're not there every step of the way to help them along....of course, we did help the Taliban into power, a few years back, and where did that get us??

My very sad and worried .02

TR

[monoman]

Both war and postwar are off budget. Seems it always looks better than.

[Ramstrong]

For 12 years now the people of Iraq have suffered while Saddam has survived the last 12 years of embargo unscathed. He has been able to smuggle enough oil out that He and the ba'ath party have been doing quite well. GSA is correct about the information that cannot be revealed. In many cases, it can't be shared with the american public or foreign governments because the source could possibly be revealed.

In intelligence it is VERY important to keep your sources secure. I lived in a SCIF for 3 1/2 years, I read the message traffic every day. I was the Iran/Iraq/China subject matter expert for my ship. I am very familiar with this man and he DOES need to be removed now. It should've happened 12 years ago and I believe it has haunted both George Bush Sr and Margaret Thatcher since.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

George Bush is our President. He is surrounded by a highly qualified cabinet. We need to stand behind our leadership. One voice to the world.

[crabbait]

GSA - I don't mean to pick nits..but I think you left out a President. Carter was a one-termer who held office from '76 until '80. Nixon was replace with Pres. FORD who was in office for the fall of VN, remember him. Not that it makes any difference.

Just heard on the news that this years budget deficit was estimated at $1,800,000,000,000.00 ($1.8 TRILLION)! Of course that is before the $1 trillion that the war is estimated to cost. History repeats itself. What do you think GWB's chances are of re-election? %.000,000,000,008,1! It's still the economy......etc.

[Thumper]

Yep!

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by crabbait:
GSA - I don't mean to pick nits..but I think you left out a President. Carter was a one-termer who held office from '76 until '80. Nixon was replace with Pres. FORD who was in office for the fall of VN, remember him. Not that it makes any difference.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You got me, CB. I did forget about Ford......Duh! You're right and I'm wrong. Savor the moment.

[cannonball]

I dont feel that any elected offical would spend the amount of money Bush is spending and risk the young lives of our nations military without a good ethical reason. I despise the notion of war, but id rather "bring it to them" than bow down to them.
The threat is real, look in your history books and find the name Nevil Chamberlin. Chamberlin was the prime minister of england in 1938. He was able to get a singed treaty from Hitler promising "peace in our time". Well, a year later Hitler gave the english a smacking called WWII, which a man named Churchill took care of as prime minister. The French have somehow forgot there role in this military exercise.
Im shure Bush would would rather be rembered like Churchill, than not be rembered like Chamberlin.

[crabbait]

GSA - I would much rather that you were right and I was wrong about this war thing. If I am right this nation will never be the same and what we are experiencing now will be remembered as the good old days.

[Straydog]

When he said, "Let no child be left behind," we thought Dubya was referring to their education, not troop ships headed to Iraq.

Silly us..........

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by cannonball:
I dont feel that any elected offical would spend the amount of money Bush is spending and risk the young lives of our nations military without a good ethical reason. I despise the notion of war, but id rather "bring it to them" than bow down to them.
The threat is real, look in your history books and find the name Nevil Chamberlin. Chamberlin was the prime minister of england in 1938. He was able to get a singed treaty from Hitler promising "peace in our time". Well, a year later Hitler gave the english a smacking called WWII, which a man named Churchill took care of as prime minister. The French have somehow forgot there role in this military exercise.
Im shure Bush would would rather be rembered like Churchill, than not be rembered like Chamberlin.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's not Bush money that is being spent, and he knows that loss of American life will be minimal if we resort to the same kind of aerial campaign that we started with the first time around. It'll be Bush money that is gained when he's out of office in `06 and profiting from the reassembly of Iraq's oil production equipment. If Bush doesn't go back into the oil business when he gets out of office then I will be GREATLY suprised.

Comparing the economically-ravaged Iraq of today with 1930's Germany is apples to oranges. Saddam needs to be ousted, but going to war is not the answer. Especially when it is so much against world opinion that it will most likely make us targets for additional terrorist activities.

[speyfly]

You guys have danced all around it but you really haven't put the pieces together. We did not elect a president, we elected an agenda! The group that occupies the White House has been hanging in the wings prior to george's Presidential campaign. This group needed a mouthpiece and this is where george comes into the picture. This group consists of neo-conservative powerhouses and think tanks that believe in preemptive aggression and global economic domination. There is a lot of info available but please refer to included link to get you going.
THEIR AGENDA

[monoman]

Geek
The commish of Baseball! Not oil. Opening day 2009, who will throw out the first pitch?

[cannonball]

Geek, Id like to think diplomacy would work too. The lessons of history show us a Tyrant is just a tyrant. Barganing with a tyrant is very, very tricky. I think Sadam and Hitler both fall into the tyrant category.

I truly wish diplomacy can win out, but we must not set ourselves up for problems in the future. Drawing lines and letting things fester (like in Korea) may set up huge and complex problems in the future.

Your comparison of Iraq's economy now and Germanys 1930's economy is intresting. Germany was well on its way to recovering from the depression. Iraq has been recovering from the 91 war. Im not shure how they actually compare but its good food for thought. I have a bit of time on my hands and ill try to dig some facts on both, You raised my curoisity. I'll relay what facts I can find.

I realize this is all about power and money, but I dont think Bush would gamble with the lives of young americans over oil money.

As far is future terrisom is concerned , isnt the future now? I dont think terrorism would stop if bush and sadam were to hug and get married today. There are certian circles linked to Iraq that will be silenced for now, but I dont think a win in iraq will stop it permenantly.
Killing people on TV is still a very effective way of getting a message accross.

Im not trying to flame anyone here, just discuss all sides of a complex issue, by doing this maybee we can all sort out this issue in our own minds. You have all made me think, that is a good thing. You all have very good points. Please don't take anything personally, were all on the same side here. :smile:

[ 03-08-2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: cannonball ]

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by HeavyMetal BankFisherman:
George Bush is our President. He is surrounded by a highly qualified cabinet. We need to stand behind our leadership. One voice to the world.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">SIEG!
HEIL!
SIEG!
HEIL!

[speyfly]

Something smells in Washington! Just more information regarding this war.

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01
A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

CLICH HERE FOR THE FULL STORY

[ 03-08-2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[speyfly]

Ya know what I find strange about this war debate, the war proponents base their position on faith with no or little supporting information and the war opponents base their position on good informational sources. What is up with that?

[speyfly]

Boedy quote…” You report only the information that makes your point and you disregard any that points to a need to go to war. You have to look at the whole picture and not just what the liberal press puts out”.

Again Boedy you make my case. Where is YOUR PROOF? This administration has been surrounded with secrecy, dodging questions, untruths, lack of evidence, stonewalling, out and out lies and much more. If I am so off base, why does better than 50% of the people in this country feel the same way? I know, they have no faith that this administration is being truthful because they have given NOTHING in the way of proof.

Boedy quote…” Containment hasn’t worked, Inspections haven’t worked, and peer pressure from the world community has done little to insure Saddam is WMD free as per the cease fire he signed after the first gulf war.

Wrong again Boedy. Inspection did work by reducing his WMD by over 90% and it is working now.

Boedy quote…” He will not permit a permanent UN force in his country to force him to comply so that’s not a real option”.

I don’t know how you can say this. Have we tried to do anything other than beat the war drum? NO!

Boedy quote…” Again I ask you if you are willing to take the chance with American lives if you are incorrect about his WMD and support for terrorist”.

Going to war in Iraq will not stop terrorism directed at this country. So…… In other words, you’re not liking that the chicken has come home to roost. Ya see Boedy, this war is going to be much like the drug war, cost too much and NEVER accomplishes its stated goal. Yes you could win the war on drugs if you killed the users but in the real world that really does not work. Drug users don’t feel like fighting and dieing to save their habit.

For every terrorist that you kill there will be multiple numbers to replace the one. This is a failed policy unless you exert total control over the entire populace (global), which would be difficult to say the least. Now lets say that your neo-conservative leaders decide to implement this strategy, it would start at home which that is what the Patriot Act 1 and 2 will try to accomplish.

Linden B. Johnson lied to the American people. What makes you think that this could never happen again given the unwillingness for this administration to share the critical information that they say they have for going to war. Yes it is true that I do not trust this administration but I feel that this is justified given the actions (or lack of information and cover-ups) that this administration has taken thus far.

[TheRogue]

For every terrorist that you kill there will be multiple numbers to replace the one. This is a failed policy unless you exert total control over the entire populace (global), which would be difficult to say the least.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Exactly!! In case anyone has forgotten, there's women and children blowing themselves up in Palestine!! I firmly believe that we as Americans can never fully understand what these people are feeling...and I also believe the "ruling elite" in this country would have even a worse problem understanding. What could possibly drive a woman (who I feel are naturally much more stable than us testosterone bottles :grin: :grin: ), into walking onto a busload of innocent people and blowing her self up? How can we possibly compete with that? Israel has been after it for years, with lots of OUR military equipment we sold (gave) them, and it hasn't made a damn bit of difference, if anything, it's getting worse!! Diplomacy starts to work in fits and stages, until the warmongers of BOTH sides can't stand it any longer, and blow up a bus, or bring in a tank to a neighborhood.

I agree that Sadaam has to go...unfortunately, by doing it the way we're progressing, we're going to let Osama (remember him??) win a couple of more battles in the real war: We're going to remove a non-religous leader in the Middle East that the ultra-religious Osama hates, and we're also going to **** off a whole bunch of Arabs who really didn't like us to begin with!!

That's enough for me, this is too depressing....ever have a time you desperately hope you're wrong?? I know I am right now.

TR

[ 03-08-2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[speyfly]

The Rogue, the reason that anyone commits suicide is because of the feeling of hopelessness.

[TheRogue]

Spey....exactly....except most "suicidals" don't attempt to take a busload of "enemies" with them.

TR

[kisutch]

Originally posted by Ramstrong:
I am very familiar with this man and he DOES need to be removed now. It should've happened 12 years ago and I believe it has haunted both George Bush Sr and Margaret Thatcher since.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ramstrong, I respect your opinion and experience in this matter. I wonder how you think Saddam should be removed. Do you think a full-scale war will accomplish that? Are there alternatives that would produce the desired result (removal) without the great cost to the US and our allies?

I do not ask this in accusatory manner. I am really curious.

It just just seems to me that in life we have choices and the they aren't always black and white. In this situation, it doesn't necessarily have to be war OR no action. There are always other options, and I wonder what else might be effective.

[Boedy]

So Spyfly your answer is Yes I take it,you are willing to risk it then?

YES or NO it’s a simple question Spyfly are you willing to risk the lives of American civilians if you are wrong. Why do you have to try and redirect when posed with a simple question like this.

You say 90 percent of Saddams WMD has been destroyed? (BTW what’s the source for that claim please?) So 10 percent is an ok level for him to keep? Even if you could verify that he did destroy 90 percent of the original he has been making more for 12 years unabated and has mobile plants thanks to our friends the Germans so he can just move around and make more when he wants.

[kisutch]

[quote]Originally posted by TheRogue:

I agree that Sadaam has to go...unfortunately, by doing it the way we're progressing, we're going to let Osama (remember him??) win a couple of more battles in the real war: We're going to remove a non-religous leader in the Middle East that the ultra-religious Osama hates, and we're also going to **** off a whole bunch of Arabs who really didn't like us to begin with!!

That's enough for me, this is too depressing....ever have a time you desperately hope you're wrong?? I know I am right now.

TR

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I too think that Osama is just giddy over our war preparations. What better way for him to rally his troops for a "holy war" with us?

I can't agree with you more on the last part - I hope I'm wrong in all of this. I hope Bush knows what he's doing and it's all over and done quickly. It's not the fear that I'm wrong that keeps me awake at night, it's fear that I'm right.