Are we going to be nuked at election time?

Mitch, your card-carrying membership in the "Anybody but Bush" club is obscuring the facts: Iraq is millions of square miles of ******* sand, you find it hard to believe that WMDs could be hidden underground? It tooks months to find Saddam in a 10 foot square hole! BTW, it was your pals on the left that in 1998, 2000 and 2002 said WMDs were DEFINATELY there and Saddam DEFINATELY had to go (Daschle, "Jake and the Fatman" Kennedy, Lieberman, Kerry, Bill and Hitlary, etc.) Funny how NOW they have changed their tune... in an election year... HMMMM.

 

You don't need to disagree Bryan. The attacks did change the outcome of the election, that admits no discussion.

But let me point out an issue that might have slipped most people who are giving their opinion here. The government has been hiding and delaying information about the attacks for three days, there has been absolute manipulation of media under their control, it's been a real scandal, and this also admits no discussion. You know, they were making the strongest efforts to deceive the Spanish population by blaming ETA, when the rest of the world already knew it was Al-Q.

IMO - Spanish voter I am - that alone is enough reason to throw a government out of office. Also this is the opinion of the 10% of people who didn't vote in 2000 and they voted yesterday (67% vs. 77%). Have a look at all the Spanish press these days.

In my opinion Al-Q has only *indirectly* achieved their purposes. One should get a full picture of the situation: people voted yesterday upset with the Conservatives, not terrorized by Al-Qaeda. Believe me, we've been suffering 30 years of domestic terrorism and most people prefer the "hard fight" way to stop it. I guess you can't imagine how upset the people were with the government last weekend.

 

Art, are you advocating that we immediately withdraw like the Spanish?

I will admit that withdrawing all our troops to secure bases inside Iraq so that they can just kill each other instead of our troops has a certain appeal.

However, I'm afraid that, like it or not, we are going to be in the nation buildling business in Iraq and around the world for our own safety. I am convienced that, at the end of the day, anti-Amercianism has its roots in poverty, not religion. Sure the wackos preach religious hatred; but to get people in the streets, you need folks who have nothing left to lose.

Your thoughts, Dale

 

Yet they did not actually give the order to invade. Bushie did. His daddy tald him is several conversations and in a book on himself all the miriad of reasons not to invade Iraq--the problem is the bushie cannot or doesnot read.

Then there is Ruben (treasury secretary) who's book indicates that bush admin was contemplating a war on Sadam in the first few days of his administration.

And then there is the great rush to support the US war on Iraq by every other country in the world except a few--yeah right--unlike the previous coallition this time there was essentially none. The rest of the world ask us not to get ourselves mired in quicksand, unfortunately, bushies mind was make up--litterally--made up--like WMDs. And now we are wondering why the rest of the world doesn't want to jump in and A) pay for the war, and B) fix the damage we caused.

Just like bushies father, he won the war and lost the battle.

 

Because the bushies and the Saudi royals are in bed together. And bushie doesn't want to ruffle the feathers of the great satan^^^^oil supplier.

 

Ok since I'm a geek and I like to deal with testable claims instead of metaphysical bantering, I did the math.

From 9/11/01 to 3/11/04, there are 913 days. I guess if you don't count the infamous days themselves, you have 911 days between the two events.

911 days into the future puts us at April 24, 2006.

-R

 

That is irrelevant, the fact is the leftist, pinko, "I hate America" crowd were ALL OVER the photo op to talk tough at Clinton's side (let's not forget he bombed an aspirin factory to distract from his fat little UGLY whore incident, and if you think ANYTHING ELSE you are an idiot) but NOW they act like they NEVER said it. Another example of their hypocrisy and LYING and "what's good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander" philosophy.

Sorry to tell you but we DO NOT need the rest of the world's OK to protect ourselves or our national interests. I know you doves like to overlook history but if the rest of the world's opinion was so well-thought out and correct, 2/3 of Europe would be speaking German today. In 1939 the WORLD'S opinion that you place so much credence on was to let Hitler and the Nazis have WHATEVER they wanted so as not to piss them off. The *****-boy liberals kept saying: "oh let him have Poland...he'll stop there; oh let him have the Sudentenland..he'll stop there... etc." Well we NOW know that was WRONG don't we. BTW, your buddy Kerry (the war hero that then came home and spit in the face of his fellow soldiers with his lies) thinks we shouldn't take a dump without the UN's approval. What a mealy-mouthed, non-committal pansy! That's leadership all right.

We shall see, the battle has only begun, and there will be JUST enough of the great-unwashed who will SEE that Kerry is a pacifist, two-faced, fence-rider who has never taken a real stance on ANYTHING in his entire political life. Oh, aside from his commiseration with the Viet Cong and coming home and telling Americans stateside who did not know any better that OUR soldiers were mass murders. He and Jane Fonda would have looked great on that tank together. Hopefully some Vietnam vet will slip through security at some rally and give Kerry the ass-kicking he so richly deserves.

 

I think they will attempt something, but doubt it will work. We are committed, does not matter who started the fight, even if we spread love and harmony, Osama and the gang will still attack us. If they do anything some people here will head off to their haj and drop a little something and take out Mecca and Medina.

Take 4 monkeys put them in a cage. Put a bowl of food in the center of the cage. When they go for it, spray them with water until they are too afraid to go for the food. Replace one monkey with a new monkey. When he goes for the food the others will be afraid of the chilling water and beat him. When he no longer goes for the food replace one of the original monkeys. Do this until there are none of the original monkeys in the cage. Even when none of them have been sprayed, they will beat the next monkey going for the food.

Why? I dunno, that's just the way it has always been around here.

 

tifosi69,

I am a raving conservative myself (albeit a CDN one) but don't you think "I hate America crowd" is a little much? You don't actually think that Democrats hate America do you? That's a very Coulter-esque cheap shot.

Also, in the interests of fairness, Kerry at least went to Vietnam and served with distinction. I still have no time for Democrats or liberals, but one can't question Kerry's record on Vietnam without acknowledging what GWB did with regard to that war.

Regards,
Joe

 

Consequences indeed, Art. And consequences of inaction as well. The Spanish may for the time being be spared any more incidents of terrorism, and they may be smarter for leaving the fight up to us (like WWII & the Cold War), but this will be fought, and we will win.

We have and continue to go after bin Laden, and could not ignore Hussein. With him gone we have solved many problems: The Iranians have no need to devlop nuclear weapons, the Syrian Baath Party had better re-consider supporting terrorists as a tool of dipolmacy and we no longer need troops in Arabia.

bin Laden had plenty of recruits and money before Iraq.

And Dale, the roots of Anti-Americanism is NOT rooted in poverty. The man on the street in some of this world's poorest countrys think quite highly of the U.S.A. The 9/11 high-jackers were very much middle class. Their hate is bred in envy of our freedoms of belief, politics, culture and economic system. Nothing can appease that kind of hatred.

I just wish the Bushies were more brave in telling the truth before, so they could spin less now.

 

When it involves invading another country and deposing its acknowledged government and institutions, International law does require the rest of the world to sigh on. In 1990 it did, in 2003 it decidely did not.

No world body denagrates US for attacking Afganistan, thats where the terrorits were trained and the base of their leadership.

Iraq is different. There is still not real evidence that Iraq had any part whatsoever in 9/11. nor have any WMDs shown up, nor does it look like they will!

In actuality, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia! Thats where the 9/11 personell came from; much of the binLaden money supply STILL come from there, their regime is at least as corrupt and evil as Sadam.......

And how exactly is that different than letting us (USoA) invade Iraq! (Iraq 2003 == Poland 1939) In fact, your position reinfoces the view that the rest of the world should be gathering strength to stage a war on USoA to quell our Imperialism and power grab of the Iraqi oil!

 

Saddam Quiz:

1. Who is responsible for the deaths of over 50,000 people?
2. Who enjoys oppressing women?
3. Who enjoys raping women?
4. Who enjoys torturing and killing those who oppose him?
5. Who runs UNOPPOSED in Iraq elections?
6. Who had total power over media in Iraq?
7. Who has used WMDs on his own people?
8. Who was outspoken about their intent to harm the U.S.?
9. Who hides in a hole in the ground while his comrades are dying and dares to call Americans "cowards" ?
10. Who had sons who frequently would kill people just for the fun of it?
11. Who had a one-time active nuclear weapons program verified by Iraqi defectors?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hint, his name starts with "S" and ends in "addam".

Who thinks it is unaccpetable to let an obvious loose cannon like this control a nation? A nation that is oppressed, yet full of palaces for the rulers.

If Saddam had 1 truckload of WMDs(enough to take out major world cities), who thinks it would be easy to hide them all over a country full of sand? Needle in a haystack doesn't even begin to describe the situation.


Who DOESN'T think this is sufficient to remove Saddam?

 

That's BS and you know it. Never has there been a country in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the world that has enjoyed MORE political, economic and military dominance than the US and yet abused that power SO LITTLE, if at all, in an un-provoked manner, than the US. That is FACT and your attempted analogy leaks like a sieve there are so many holes in it. Imperialism, are you for real? IF we wanted to be imperialists, we would have doe it 50 or so years ago. We had the opportunity to KEEP our boots on the necks of Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, France... need I go on? But we did not, instead we spent OUR tax monies to rebuild those countries infrastructures and economies so that they could then come back to us later and flood our market with their products, conspire with our enemies to make money off their oil, selling weapons technology to our enemies so it can be used to kill our boys, all the while saying to our faces they are our allies and offering their empty condolences post 9/11, while they protest us and plot behind our backs. You know what, **** 'em, who needs them?

 

Brilliantly said.

 

mitch,
after reading all of your erudite musings, i now realize that you actually know very little about how the world really works.

travel a little why don't you. and i don't mean europe or canada. go somewhere thats run by a dictator or an oppressive government.
get an iraqi penpal and ask him how is life is.
read the wall street journal as well as the new yorker, it will help balance your life a little.
but more than all that, grow up a little more before you start slandering everyone in authority just because you don't know why they did something.

 

Ross -1 Mitch - a big fat ZEEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOOO!

 

Ok so now we have to attack N.Korea... China... Saudi Arabia... Iran...

btw.. since when is it our decision who runs other countries? I'm wondering what will happen if Iraq gets free elections and they decide to elect some extremist Muslim nutcase who makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers. Do we let the election stand as is, or continue blowing them up and rebuilding them until they get a president that we like?

-R

 

If you want to get technical about whether or not we had a UN mandate to go into iraq this time, consider this:

The first Gulf War was authorized by a UN mandate. That war was officially never ended, there was only a cease-fire agreement. The iraqi military violated that aggreement numerous times regarding the no-fly zones and firing on allied aircraft. So, technically, the first UN Mandate from the early 90s was still in effect.

Second, INTERNATIONAL LAW IS JUST A SUGGESTION!!!!!! There's no such thing as an "illegal war." "International law" is just a way of building confidence and faith between nations. In reality, a nation can do whatever it pleases. It just may have to face the consequences of those actions.

Third, where is the imperialism? As Colin Powell said (though I don't remember the quote exactly): "American soldiers have fought for freedom all over the world, and all that we've ever asked for in return is enough land to bury those who could not come home." Do you see us annexing Afghanistan? Do you see any plans drafted to make Iraq the 51st state?

Fourth, you liberals really need to get over this war for oil thing. For starters, most of our oil now comes from Russia, Canada, and Venezuela, so we don't really need Iraqi oil. And if you think that oil is really what its all about, then why don't you just let us drill in Alasaka? Why do you fight nuclear power plants, which are by far the cleanest, most cost effective, and efficient alternative power sources?

 

I wish/hope that there are things that we can feasibly do in order to change the countries that you mentioned. Luckily we were able to pull of Iraq, but at this stage of the world we would have too much opposition if we trounced around from country to country helping everyone.

We were in the position to help the Iraqi people, and that is what we are doing. I don't think the Chinese would let us come in to China and not put up a serious fight. Sometimes you have to exercise what is called DILIGENCE when making these types of moves.

Since when do we have the decision who runs other countries???

How about from the moment that those country's rulers engaged in BLATANT human rights violations and have made it damn near impossible for their own people to have enough power to overthrow their leaders. THATS WHEN!

As for these people electing Muslim extremists? Well, hopefully these people will see how glorious democracy is. Maybe once they can actually be allowed to become educated they will see the flaws in their previous systems. But we can't get to that point if we sit idle and continue to watch their victimization.

If all we wanted was to get a regime change we would be out of Iraq already. Figuratively, we are giving these people the tools to cultivate their minds. Giving people the ability to access knowledge is an ultimate good. Quick fixes are excuses to appear as though the right thing is being done. Do you not think that we have some degree of responsibilities in the world?

 

OK. Now what do I do with all these wet monkeys?

As far as when we should expect another attack on U.S. soil, there seems to have been a pattern in the past whereby they carried out attacks that were gradually closer to our country. And Western Europe would qualify as pretty close.

 

All those are left over from a time when imperlialism was considered standard practice, even good and proper, for the worlds powers to engage in. Plus, they all have slight technicalities which make them arguable. We almost fought a war over Oregon (54'40" or fight!) but managed to take it via an agreement. The base in Cuba is actually held as a lease that can only be mutually terminated. California was technically voluntarily annexed after its brief stint as the "Republic of California." New Mexico was given as part of a peace agreement with Mexico, where we were actually being kind of lenient. We probably could have taken the entire country if we wanted.

 

Art, I agree with you that we have no choice but to engage in nation building in Iraq. I don't agree that the UN should get involved.

That said, I'm actually fairly optimistic that a year from now that Iraq will no longer be on the nightly news. We forget that Iraq was a fairly prosperous country before the Gulf War I. It had a big middle/professional class. Now that the oil is flowing again, sooner or later, this money will trickle down to the streets and life will return to something close to normal. That is, the rebuilding of Iraq will be nothing like the rebuilding of Germany after WWII.

I also agree that we need to refocus our efforts on hunting down these rabid dog terrorists. We need to follow the money trail where ever it goes, and we need to punish the bad guys whoever they are.

Sadly, though, I don't see much chance of any thoughful debate during the upcoming elections. We can beat this WMW horse till there ain't nuthin left, but this will not change a thing. We're stuck in Iraq for the time being. We might end up being stuck in Pakistan and a bunch of other places before we can issue the stand down order. I don't see Kerry bringing anything new to the table here.

Is there something about Kerry that I'm missing? Dale

 

Il'inglese, I agree with everything that you said. But it is my understanding that Bin Laden's pitch hit a nerve with many young Saudis because the unemployement rate is sky high and the royal family has somehow managed to piss away a good chunk of the billions in oil money that SA received.

Then when you look at the real poverty in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, the former USSR, etc. etc. etc. what you see is a mass breeding ground just waiting for someone to promise them a better life.

To give another example, 10 years ago, I thought that the odds were at least 50-50 that my kids would see a war between China and the USA during their lifetimes. However, given the amount of trade that is developing, I am not as pessimistic today. Bottom line is that you don't bomb your best customer.

Like it or not, we in the USA are going to have to engage in nation building in order for the world to be safe again. Personally, I'd rather somebody else do it. But I don't see any other country that has enough of the right stuff to pull this off.

But are we safer today than a year ago? You betcha. Saddam is gone. Lybia has dropped a dime on Pakistan. Bin Laden is living in hole somewhere to scared to even take a leak for fear of being caught. The Pakistanis are starting to get the joke. Even the North Koreans are starting to sweat a little bit.

Is is a safe world? Nope. Was it ever a safe world? Not really. Will it ever be a safe world? Probably not in my lifetime.

Your thoughts? Dale