Somethings have to be Done.
In response to anonymous: good point. I hate how most liberals think that the whole world can just sit down and sing koombiyah. Its just not that simple. The truth is that freedom is not free. There are people out there that want to destroy us. And the conservatives in charge of this country have made the right decision, and have decided to do something about it.
In the 40s people donated their time, money and money to the great cause. More than that they donated their spirit. America fought a tough battle for 4 years. lost a lot of good men and women, caused some innocent casualties, but stayed the course and got the job done.
But now, we’ve lost all vision. We’ve allowed this muslim idea of “America is the great satan” to sink slowly into our minds. Forget about how our men and women are dying all over the globe protecting freedom. Forget about how we have liberated millions of Islamic women and children from a life of oppression. Forget about the freedom and opportunity that this country has given millions. Forget about all the good that we do in the world. Instead, all you hear from liberals and media is a constant attack on the good nature of our country. And the brainless peasants are starting to let it get to them.
Saddam has been in power since 1979. He went to war with us at about 1990, I dont know the exact year. that proves that hes a threat, and one that can be dangerous. He obviously was building up military strength since he first came into power, enough to challenge the power of the U.S. But then he lost, and has been reaccumulating ever since(keep in mind bush's dad was in office at this time). I think he made a deal with al quida, and became the terrorist "patron" if you will. With the help of al quida, he got back up on his feet, and reassesed his strength (Saddam Hussien had the 4th most powerful army before we went to war with him) and prepared to declare war on america by doing some terrorists attacks (9/11) After 9/11, bush saw that saddam needed to be taken out, because saddam pulled this same trick 11 years ago on his dad. He knew what needed to be done, so he did it. Those in this country who didnt have enough forsight and awareness (Liberals) to see it coming, thought that bush went to war for no reason, just wanted the oil. Well, I hope that cleared it up for you.
Mr. Liberal: But the Weapons of Mass Destruction werent there!
This only requires little thought to answer. If you were saddam, and bush was sending over weapons inspectors to look for WMDs, what would you do? Get rid of them, of course! He obviously buried them, or shipped them off to iran. There are so many ways he could of hid them, or destroyed them.
Mr. Liberal: But we havent found them!
Well, then Saddam did a good job of whatever he did with them. We have removed saddam hussien, but the problem now is that iraq is a hotbed for al quida, they obviously werent happy when we took out thier source of money. But now we have them where we want them, fighting them in a place away from america. So this war'll take a little longer, but were defeating more adversaries in the process. Somethings just have to be done.
In the 40s people donated their time, money and money to the great cause. More than that they donated their spirit. America fought a tough battle for 4 years. lost a lot of good men and women, caused some innocent casualties, but stayed the course and got the job done.
But now, we’ve lost all vision. We’ve allowed this muslim idea of “America is the great satan” to sink slowly into our minds. Forget about how our men and women are dying all over the globe protecting freedom. Forget about how we have liberated millions of Islamic women and children from a life of oppression. Forget about the freedom and opportunity that this country has given millions. Forget about all the good that we do in the world. Instead, all you hear from liberals and media is a constant attack on the good nature of our country. And the brainless peasants are starting to let it get to them.
Saddam has been in power since 1979. He went to war with us at about 1990, I dont know the exact year. that proves that hes a threat, and one that can be dangerous. He obviously was building up military strength since he first came into power, enough to challenge the power of the U.S. But then he lost, and has been reaccumulating ever since(keep in mind bush's dad was in office at this time). I think he made a deal with al quida, and became the terrorist "patron" if you will. With the help of al quida, he got back up on his feet, and reassesed his strength (Saddam Hussien had the 4th most powerful army before we went to war with him) and prepared to declare war on america by doing some terrorists attacks (9/11) After 9/11, bush saw that saddam needed to be taken out, because saddam pulled this same trick 11 years ago on his dad. He knew what needed to be done, so he did it. Those in this country who didnt have enough forsight and awareness (Liberals) to see it coming, thought that bush went to war for no reason, just wanted the oil. Well, I hope that cleared it up for you.
Mr. Liberal: But the Weapons of Mass Destruction werent there!
This only requires little thought to answer. If you were saddam, and bush was sending over weapons inspectors to look for WMDs, what would you do? Get rid of them, of course! He obviously buried them, or shipped them off to iran. There are so many ways he could of hid them, or destroyed them.
Mr. Liberal: But we havent found them!
Well, then Saddam did a good job of whatever he did with them. We have removed saddam hussien, but the problem now is that iraq is a hotbed for al quida, they obviously werent happy when we took out thier source of money. But now we have them where we want them, fighting them in a place away from america. So this war'll take a little longer, but were defeating more adversaries in the process. Somethings just have to be done.
67 Comments:
This is all such mindless BS. First of all I'd like to say that there IS such a thing as liberal media, but there is ALSO such a thing as conservative media. Your slanted facts are no better than those of the opposite spectrum.
SADAAM HUSSEIN WAS NOT THE MASTERMIND BEHIND 9/11. Where on earth have you been? You're throwing around these facts like everyone should know them, but truth be told YOU are the one that is oblivious to the truth. This is along those same lines of my first comment in your last post. Most people are confusing the 9/11 attacks and Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. There is NO link. Find me a source other than Fox News that proves a legitimate link between the two. It has been argued, I am aware, that Hussein "financed" or "harbored" some terrorist organizations. In my opinion, by donating to or supporting the current Republican Party, that is exactly the same thing that millions of Americans do everyday. Not only that, but we CANNOT forget about the terrorists that are American and live on American soil. It's about time that we start working on the inner workings of our own country before invading someone else's.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Allison, thank your lamenting the links between 9-11 and Saddam--we both are on the same page for this different reasons lol.
Bin Laden= 9/11
Saddam= perceived WMD's
At least in North Korea (where our military will probably be going next) we know they have something!
Al Queda isn't the only extreme Islamic group out there that doesn't like the USA.
The problem is the Islamic groups are not limited to one nation, it's an Islamic "brotherhood" that transcends boundaries. So they are not limited to one area or one country (circa IRAQ). That's the problem.
Saddam isn't/wasn't the ONLY ONE bankrolling terrorists.
Also the 40's was WWII, it's a far leap of the imagination to tie WWII to the war in IRAQ. You seem to mix this ---- Al Queda is a terrorist group, NOT an army of ANY particular nation (as was the case in WWII)
On another point? Weren't the Inspectors from the UN? I don't think Bush really had any say in that. I think the UN needed to be more in this than they are.
I think the US is going to have credibility issues and in the future that could hurt the US greatly in the grand spectrum of world politics and policy.
Bottom line question: When we pull out of IRAQ- what do you think the political stability of IRAQ will be?
Second question: Bush has promoted that we are bringing democracy to IRAQ. Right now, they are trying to approve an Islamic Republic....really then what was the point?
Third- Will the UN Security Council ever vote on FULL military action not just an advisor, etc..against IRAQ.
still a retard? yes well how did saddam got into power and who set him there? Look for yourself it is not that hard. Unless if your mind is still closed with the BS filled in your eye. So we also set up the Khomeini in power but I think you are too ignorant who the hell Khomeini is.
The truth is that freedom is not free. No shit sherlock even a brontosaurus can figure it out.
Mr. Liberal: But the Weapons of Mass Destruction werent there!
This only requires little thought to answer. If you were saddam, and bush was sending over weapons inspectors to look for WMDs, what would you do? Get rid of them, of course! He obviously buried them, or shipped them off to iran. There are so many ways he could of hid them, or destroyed them.
Mr. Liberal: But we havent found them!
Preposterous it;s because we gave both Iran and Saddam the power to kill each other. The biggest corporations manufactures and distributes to these foreign countries and nuke the hell out of each other. If you actually look at lockheed martin or general electric (who own NBC) they are profitting from this war no difference than Bill Gates or Soros. What I am reading here is completely false statement.
Now explain to me how does Al(CIA)da have anything to do with Saddam?
Well, then Saddam did a good job of whatever he did with them. We have removed saddam hussien, but the problem now is that iraq is a hotbed for al quida, they obviously werent happy when we took out thier source of money. But now we have them where we want them, fighting them in a place away from america. So this war'll take a little longer, but were defeating more adversaries in the process. Somethings just have to be done.
So all of the so called bombings are done by terrorists I find that very hard of convincing me. The CIA obviously trained Bin Laden as they did with Saddam. Not that hard peasant just look at the BOLD words.
Allisoni Balloni: I never said he was the mastermind behind it. I just said he took part in funding it.
I'm going to the evergreen fair tomorrow to volunteer at the republican party booth tomorrow. does that make me a terrorist supporter? If thats your opinion then you opinion is WARPED.
Cougar: Yes, that is correct. thank you for your input. Im glad we are on the same page here. hopefully we can get the others up to speed.
k: "Al Queda isn't the only extreme Islamic group out there that doesn't like the USA."
yes but its the largest.
"Saddam isn't/wasn't the ONLY ONE bankrolling terrorists."
Yes but he was the richest one.
"I think the UN needed to be more in this than they are.
I think the US is going to have credibility issues and in the future that could hurt the US greatly in the grand spectrum of world politics and policy."
The reason th Un wasnt in this is because they werent for it. they didnt understand why it had to be done. Bush did, I did, and so did the conservatives of america. Bush went ahead and made the right decision even though most of the world wasnt on the same page. He didnt appeal to the popular decision. he chose the RIGHT decision.
anonymous: yes I heard this all before. Listen to me. IT DOESNT MATTER HOW HE GOT IN POWER THE FACT IS THAT HE IS/WAS IN POWER AND WE HAD TO TAKE HIM OUT.
"Now explain to me how does Al(CIA)da have anything to do with Saddam?"
Is there something wrong with you? Thats what half my post was about! Go back and read it again.
You did not say anything about him funding it. You said that he "prepared to declare war on America by doing some terrorist attacks (9/11)"
Where is Osama bin Laden? Because I believe he was the one in charge of the organization and is yet to be captured.
allisoni balloni: Well, what I meant to say is that al quida would do some terrorists attacks as Saddam would prepare for war. Sorry its kind of hard to form my thoughts on this because its a very complex ordeal.
Exactly, a very complex ordeal that you don't seem to understand.
allisoni balloni: no, a complex ordeal that I do understand, but is hard to get on paper.
and it is not mindless bs. you just cant stand it because you know Im right. What? you dont think so? prove it.
Anyone reading this right now will be able to tell that you completely changed what you said between when you wrote it in your entry and when I pointed it out. You were proved wrong and changed your statement, which in turn makes ME right. I can't stand it because I know that you're WRONG and that you aren't the only one who believes those things. You've been told that Saddam was behind 9/11 as an excuse for the failed war in Iraq, and frankly, it isn't true. Believe whatever you wish, but there IS a truth and eventually you will have to accept it.
We are winning in Iraq. When democracy is spread through the middle east, that will help kill the breeding grounds for terrorists. The problem is...we want it to be over NOW. We are used to everything being instant. The real impact of what is going on won't be felt for some years now.
The people are hungry for freedom. The rumblings have already started...in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and others.
No...I don't believe Saddam was behind 9/11. Helping Al Queda is in his best intrests though. Let's not forget about the common enemy...the US.
*quote*"Saddam isn't/wasn't the ONLY ONE bankrolling terrorists."
Yes but he was the richest one.*end quote*
LOL, this is almost laughable.
Please tell me this isn't what you actually believe.
So he's richer than the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia? If you have those figures I'd love to see them from a credible source.
Now do you know WHY the UN wasn't for this?
Like France, Russia, Germany wouldn't vote? Why? How about one three letter little word. Oil. And the charming contracts they had signed with Saddam. That's researchable. France was doing the telecommunication system in IRAQ.
That's more why the UN wasn't involved and they SHOULD have been.
The problem with the war in IRAQ- you can't fight a war with an enemy that has no specific location. They draw from the Islamic nations not just IRAQ--it's a "cause."
It's a war the US is not going to win. We are not establishing a "democracy."(see my above post about Islamic Republic).
In my personal opinion--I'd rather have Bin Laden. Because my personal attachments to 911--my resolve to bring someone to justice is directed there. (Allison we agree in most cases here the most)
In the long run, the history books will write what went right and what went wrong in IRAQ--I still believe that the credibility of the US will be damaged if IRAQ resorts back to it's previous state soon after were gone.
I mean it's obvious the UN doesn't care, and the US isn't going to solve the world's problems forever. Personally I wish we would have taken care of this back during Desert Storm.
---
The sad part of this all? Your generation is going to be effected the most by the outcome of IRAQ. If it goes on, like this,North Korea and IRAN develops Nukes, Saudi Arabia, IRAQ continue to harbor terrorists...just be ready is all I can say. This is one huge can of worms.
Mindless BS that's what it is
anonymous: yes I heard this all before. Listen to me. IT DOESNT MATTER HOW HE GOT IN POWER THE FACT IS THAT HE IS/WAS IN POWER AND WE HAD TO TAKE HIM OUT.
Ooooh someone sounds pissed. It does matter because we actually set him there in the first place. Obviously you still fill that BS in your eye. You have no clue our own CIA initially set Saddam as a hitman. No one in the news tells about it or would they ever tell about how the oil buddies from Saudies are sleeping together. They practice fundamental MUSLIMS. I smell hypocrisy in the Bush Crime Syndicate.
"Now explain to me how does Al(CIA)da have anything to do with Saddam?"
Is there something wrong with you? Thats what half my post was about! Go back and read it again.
So you think here that we are the best country in the world policing what we are supposed to do to other countries and at the same time supply the weapons to their countries to kill each other. No you are absolutely don't read anything I said. You know what we will see what will happen in the motherfucking end bitch.
K-You make some good points. I wish this was taken care of during Desert Storm as well. We need to get Mr. bin Laden. I'm for the war...I don't think this war would have been worth it if Iraq reverts to an Islamic state and not a democracy. The UN seems to have been ineffective since it began. I just love that oil for food program! Good points about France, Germany, and Russia as well.
k: guess what else is laughable. Considering going to war with the royal family. He was the main terrorist supporter that was looking to start a war with the U.S. Thats what most of this post is about. why we went to war with saddam hussien.
allisoni balloni: i guess that the issue that we disagree on the most here is that you think this is a failed war, and I dont. We did a pretty good job, and still are. Many sections of iraq are already self policed, and this will largen.
BushCheney08 said...
k: guess what else is laughable. Considering going to war with the royal family. He was the main terrorist supporter that was looking to start a war with the U.S. Thats what most of this post is about. why we went to war with saddam hussien.
----
So we have a massive military operation in foreign country costing the USA billions for 1 person? Under your reasonsing, the reason we went there was to get Saddam, we got him...So now why are we(US) there if THAT was the reason. Is there any official credible sources that you can show me that SHOWS Saddam was the MAIN bankroller for what?(please do not say 9-11)
So we the US one of the mightiest militaries on earth attacked IRAQ because Saddam was LOOKING to declare war on the USA..I HOPE the military had more than that to go on!!!!!
And isn't this now a war on Terrorism now??? So hey guess what? That Royal Family you laughed about? Their in it too! I'm not saying all but enough.There is enough oil money there for terrorism funding.
So now we will just pick and choose whoever is convenient???
Soon when you end up filling out that Selective Service card I really hope the US has more to go on than that.
Or our military is going to be mighty busy.
And all will be for not if IRAQ returns to being an Islamic Republic. And the minute the USA pulls out the religious, cultural, ethnic clashes will begin again. Since there is already one Celric calling this current proposed (Islamic Republic) IRAQ Constitution and I quote "Don't follow constitutions of the infidels," influential Sunni cleric Sheik Mahmoud al-Sumaidaei
Oh yeah, so glad we brought them "democracy."
Joe---
I too loved the UN oil for food program isn't that what built the golden palace in IRAQ???? --wait that was supposed to go to the people.... :) :)
------
But 9-11-01- Bin Laden-that's who I really think the US should have focused all this energy on. It's shameful, it's been almost 4 years and nothing.
I see a real problem with this post as well in the fact that it is all, 100% speculation. And not terribly original speculation at that. It sounds like just about the same caliber of speculation that started the war on Iraq to begin with. "Oh I'm betting he's got WMDs, let's go blow some shit up! Wheeeeee!". "Oh that guy is FULLY going to declare war on us - I mean look at all the military might he's got cooked up in there! He could fight a pitched battle for like a week with all those forces!"
Yeah I don't buy that. Saddam is a worldwide military threat and his military effort collapsed in what? Was it even a week?
The reason the U.S. can't get Iraq under control is the same reason they could never get Vietnam under control - they aren't fighting against an enemy regime, they're fighting against the entire country. Those insurgents that are wreaking havoc aren't Saddam's army, they ARE Iraq. They are the everyday, common people who hate what the U.S. is doing there.
Maybe the hated Saddam too, but they never did to him what they are doing to the people that are occupying their country right now. I agree that Saddam was an evil sod who probably did need to be taken out at some point, but that wasn't why they went to Iraq and that is why Saddam's removal was not done in a way that has improved the situation in Iraq.
On a somewhat different note - I almost had to laugh about Pat Robertson's comment regarding President Chavez - its the dark side of the fundamentalist-religious-right-moral-majority war machine showings its true colours at last. On the other hand it makes me want to yell and scream and cry at the same time because so many people think THAT is Christianity, which is so very, very wrong.
BC08 - I support you on this one. No one seems to remember to 80k-180K Iraqi citizens the Saddam slaughtered after Desert Storm. That in itself warrants us being their.
K~ - The reason we are still there is because we need to finish the job by developing a strong government to ensure that we don't need to go back in another 15 years.
Exactly, Saint. PERFECTLY put.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kingpin1613 said...
- I support you on this one. No one seems to remember to 80k-180K Iraqi citizens the Saddam slaughtered after Desert Storm. That in itself warrants us being their
K~ - The reason we are still there is because we need to finish the job by developing a strong government to ensure that we don't need to go back in another 15 years.
---
But at what cost? And at this point it will still be back about 15 years if they pass a Constitution that makes IRAQ an Islamic Republic. We can't insure anything. The USA would have to be there forever if that was the case. The US military cannot be the world police--that's the UN's role however they never seem to be doing their role.
Desert Storm we didn't finish anything we didn't take Baghdad.
Desert Storm didn't improve a heck a lot of anything. The country wasn't at peace before Desert Storm and it wasn't after. It's not now.
Saint, you are right in comparing this to Vietnam. I said a couple of posts back the problem with IRAQ is we are fighting a cause and not a nation as in W.W.II.
Simply the USA cannot control the religious strife and the ethnic differences that have existed for years!
It's very simplistic to think if IRAQ passes a Constitution that it will be a calm happy go lucky country. God help us if our troops get caught in the middle of a civil war.
Need to add to my comment up there...
Desert Storm did stop the aggression of IRAQ against Kuwait.
BUT it did little for the political or religious stability of IRAQ.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
These "insurgents" are terrorists. Let's call them what they are. They are terrorists trying to break our will to finish this. Clinton cut and run in Somalia. bin Laden saw this and called America a paper tiger. If we do that in Iraq, the terrorists will see this....and that would not be a good thing.
joe said...
These "insurgents" are terrorists. Let's call them what they are. They are terrorists trying to break our will to finish this. Clinton cut and run in Somalia. bin Laden saw this and called America a paper tiger. If we do that in Iraq, the terrorists will see this....and that would not be a good thing.
But the problem with IRAQ remains the same. We are not fighting one person, one nation, it's a religious cause that can really come from anywhere covered by the Islamic religion.
That's where the USA isn't going to win. It's going to be a stalemate for a lifetime because the US is looked at as foreign invaders on Islamic soil.
There is no paticular place we can fight the fight and win. It's not gonna happen.
They look at the USA as Christian nation and they are Islamic. That problem is always going to be there. Now, I'm not saying we need to get Islam out of IRAQ. It is their religion in their country and we are trying to impose are vision of what IRAQ should be and right now the "democracy" that the US has been holding up high probably is going to be a pipe dream. Especially since the latest document was called an "Islamic Repubic" at best.
The USA was never going to be able to put forth our views on freedom, liberties etc. because their religion often supercedes any law.
As I said, God help the US troops if they get caught in a Civil/Religious war.
RE:Clinton cut and run in Somalia.
You can't slide with that statement. Somalia was another place we shouldn't have been. We can thank the UN for that one.
It was a 5 month bloody man hunt. And the US wasn't the only country in that mess. They all withdrew. So this wasn't Clinton it was a UN action.
I wasn't a fan of that war either.
I'm mostly against the concept of senseless, sometimes pointless wars. It doesn't matter what party is in office.
I agree that it will be bad if Iraq becomes an Islamic Republic.
My point with the Clinton thing was(I understand that other countries were there and it was suposed to be a UN thing)...bin Laden watched what happened when he pushed America. America was doing all the work over there. He saw that all he had to do was push a bit and we will give. That is why we must win in Iraq. A democracy will help stop terrorism...in time. The Islamic Republic thing scares me too.
It seems we agree on most issues.
joe said...
I agree that it will be bad if Iraq becomes an Islamic Republic.
My point with the Clinton thing was(I understand that other countries were there and it was suposed to be a UN thing)...bin Laden watched what happened when he pushed America. America was doing all the work over there. He saw that all he had to do was push a bit and we will give. That is why we must win in Iraq. A democracy will help stop terrorism...in time. The Islamic Republic thing scares me too.
It seems we agree on most issues.
----
Joe :), I know we agree but I can't let you blame Clinton for Somalia. It was a UN operation gone bad. We didn't declare war on Somolia--the US was operating under the UN---the UN is the one that cut and run because it was such a blood bath.
Just don't blame Clinton for that one and I'm good :)
It's only 4 AM but this time it wasn't a US thing to run. Just don't get my started on what I really think of the UN LOL'n.
Hey Joe, I found something else we agree on ...MUSIC! NIN great thinking music! LOL'n
Your blog is great Collectables of interest - animal figurine catroon I hope you enjoy animal figurine catroon
K: they have some good instrumental stuff, but other than that, I dont like it.
I used to be a big fan of NIN, but I've grown somewhat tired of Trent Reznor's "God doesn't exist" motif. I think he is a music genius, and the new album sounds pretty good, but if you like NIN, try checking out Skillet, Massivivid, Deitiphobia and stuff like that - those are Christian bands - actually really awesome suff. Some other bands that are also good alternatives to NIN that have, in my opinion more positive or at least more progressive lyrical content are Celldweller, Apartment 26, God Lives Underwater and stuff like that.
And you're right - the insurgents ARE terrorists - but if the people are Iraq are allowing themselves to be represented by terrir there is a reason for that. While some individual people may indulge in terror simply out of some kind of perverted sadism, for the most part there is a reason behind it - something the people feel strongly about fighting against.
These motives are not always justifiable either - a lot of times the terrorist's cause is simple fanatacsim, but in this case there is something deeper behind it. These people are fighting because they do not like that the U.S. is occupying their country - and it is THEIR country. The U.S. could be doing more to find ways of changing what they are doing so that things would ACTUALLY improve there, but again, improving the situation wasn't what they had in mind when they went in.
Saint, I listen to everything-when it comes to music I'm truly eclectic in that regard, I like a lot of Christian bands and I will check out the ones you mentioned as well :)
NIN-I don't like everything I do listen to the album Pretty Hate Machine the most. I will say seeing Trent live was an amazing show and worth the 30 degree weather.
Right now I still have the sound track for the Serengeti Trek going through my head (from VBS-taught).
Back to IRAQ:
Insurgents, terrorists, Islamic extremists--it's all the same thing in my book. They are all driven by the same cause-hate and a belief that it's their religious right.
The biggest problem will be is Islamic law vs now new written Law. If the Cleric says follow Islamic law it transends the written law. That's going to be a problem long after the US pull out.
But its something that has to be done. We cant just leave this all alone. Bush didnt do the best job, but at least he DID the job.
But tell me, why does the USA think they have ANY RIGHT to do anything to impose the Western values on an Islamic nation?
Just saying "something has to be done" doesn't cover it. There needs to be more than that.
And if the whole point was to get Saddam out--then we have accomplished that goal and should be done.
Not sending more troops over to a war with no feasible end in sight. We are not there to occupy the country and that's pretty much what's happening now.
It's the old cliche' you can lead them to water but you can't make them drink.
The longer we occupy IRAQ the more suspicious we the US looks to the rest of the world and especially any Islamic nation.
and only time will tell how good a job Bush has done. Whether this was a futile effort or defining a new type of government in the Middle East.
But the democracy has already has been reduced to an Islamic Republic.
In the long run it won't matter what any of us think, history is going to judge.
If we leave and IRAQ goes back to what it was a very divided country--it will be called futile. And most likely compared to Vietnam.
"And if the whole point was to get Saddam out--then we have accomplished that goal and should be done.
Not sending more troops over to a war with no feasible end in sight. We are not there to occupy the country and that's pretty much what's happening now."
Well be smart about this - we cant leave until there is political stability. we are also fighting much of al quida there still. That was our original goal, but its not that simple. we cant just take out thier government and leader, and then just leave them. We need to stay until its a politically stable democracy - and the date to when its that is rapidly approaching.
I guess the only difference between me and you, allisoni and k, is that you think this is a failed war. I do not. I think weve done an ok job, and that we will leave iraq soon, and I continue to have a positive attitude about it.
"we are also fighting much of al quida there still. That was our original goal..."
My goodness, boy. Would you please just decide which original fake justification you support? You continue to contradict yourself.
K-My only point was bin Laden and the other terror groups are watching very closely what we are doing. bin Laden said America is a paper tiger. Not the UN. That is why I brought that up. I guess I could have done that without mentioning Clinton. I know he isn't solely to blame.
I enjoy NIN. I hope I can catch them in concert this time around.
*quote*, is that you think this is a failed war.*end quote*
Wait wait wait, you are telling me what I think.
I don't think this is a failed war in the sense we got Saddam--but we didn't get him right away and then after we got him it was "then what"-- what I have issue with is the "progress" now.
Just read the news reports, it's not going to be a democracy. In fact one of the arguments by the Sunnis is federalism!
If political stability is what you think the USA is going to provide then we may as well set up shop because that is never going to happen.
IRAQ wasn't stable before Saddam and, it's not going to be stable whenever the US pulls out. The biggest fight is over who is going to control the oil in the North.
There are already division the Sunni's aren't happy campers at all.
Do you think one little Constitution is going to end centuries of religious strife, ethic and cultural difference?
Define soon for me?
The longer we stay the worse it's going to get--in my opinion.
We the US are looked at as invaders on foreign Islamic soil by the hard-line Islamic extremists in many countries (everywhere).
I still say, history is going to judge this and it's looking a lot like Vietnam. (side note read up on Vietnam and the history of IRAQ)
Take some time to find some Vietnam Vets (those who were in active duty on the war front-my uncle was there-he was exposed to Agent Orange (the gov't denied that for years)--find out their experiences.
It's fine to be optimistic it's your right be glad.
Luckily we are in the USA-we can agree to disagree :)
I think what bothers me the most? Is I don't think you realize that this is your generation coming up that is going to have to shouldar the burden of whether this works or not. Be sure to question everything. Just don't take anything for granted.
That's all :) Left Wing- Right Wing one is slanted as much as the other.
Only Wing I am? A Red Wings fan (hockey) see I have humor too :)
The final chapter on IRAQ is far from being written-it's a wait and see. We can speculate forever, argue forever but really you, I, Cougar,Allision, Saint, Joe, King, Annoymous can only hope for the best.
joe said...
K-My only point was bin Laden and the other terror groups are watching very closely what we are doing. bin Laden said America is a paper tiger. Not the UN. That is why I brought that up. I guess I could have done that without mentioning Clinton. I know he isn't solely to blame.
I enjoy NIN. I hope I can catch them in concert this time around.
----
Bin Laden twists anything to his advantage. But he's the one I STILL want the most. I suppose there are worse things he could have called the US other than a Paper Tiger LOL'n. :) :) :)
I'm going in October to NIN at the JLA--at least it's inside this time around lol'n.
allisoni: no, when I said "that was our original goal" I was refering back to taking out saddam. you just keep misunderstanding me.
No, you just keep defending things that basically are not defendable.
yeah, whatever allisoni. I say your denying the truth.
I guess were at an impass then.
Do you? Is that REALLY what you say? Because the truth is that you get backed into a corner and change your point because you're stuck and unable to admit that you really don't know very well what you're talking about. I do not feel that I am denying that, and therefore cannot be denying the truth. Stop contradicting yourself and then maybe you'll have a little less to cover up.
Well this is fun to watch.
But really, be glad this is America where we can question the government it's actions and polices and live to tell about it.
The Anti-Hillary
Got a scoop? Email your tips and suggestions to the editor. Premium Blog Ad Blog Ads Classifieds Amazon About The Site Taegan D. Goddard is the creator of Political Wire, a political column updated around the ...
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a Worldwide site/blog. It pretty much covers Worldwide related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
UPN says watch Chris, damn it
I'll be covering Chris Rock's semi-autobiographical sitcom Everybody Hates Chris for TV Squad once the show starts next month, but if you don't at least hear about the show before then, it'll be because you've ...
Cheers,
Dazey Duke
hydroponics
Lovely, more spam posts. To bad you can't filter that.
Cougar good points as always :)
well, thats how it may appear to you, but the way I see it you keep on misinterpreting me and you think that your on to something - that maybe I dont know what im talking about.
This post is awesome.
The liberals are in dreamworld where everyone can marry anyone, the pot is good, and there is no need for war to secure the economic freedom as well as social freedom of the United States.
Steve said...
This post is awesome.
The liberals are in dreamworld where everyone can marry anyone, the pot is good, and there is no need for war to secure the economic freedom as well as social freedom of the United States.
---
My sarcastic response:
Why yes we can all drink and be merry.
Pots are great for flowers and for cooking.
War--what is it good for absolutely nothing-great song reference there.
This war did nothing to secure an economic future anywhere.
And I'm not liberal but just had to love the assumptions and over generalizations.
k~:
Get bent. If you don't think stablizing the the Middle East if not the world, secures our economic freedom then move to North Korea ya socialist bastard. Kim Jung Il would love to have you, slaving away building his nuclear missiles.
Here are the FACTS...
Saddam is gone or soon will be from this earth.
Iraq will have a constitution regardless of the Sunnis.
Democracy is taking shape in Iraq now which is incredible in itself, in such a short time.
Democrats have been wrong about the war since it began, just as they were about Russia.
Bush deserves alot of credit for staying on course and getting things done, despite the fact that the democrats tried to cover-up Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11, as the 'Able Danger' case will prove.
Democrats had a ringer in on the commission in Jamie Gorelick who left out information about the terrorists' so democrats could say there was no connection, and then use it against Bush for going to war.
But it didn't work! WE now know for sure that Saddam was connected and the democrats tried to cover it up.
This puts Bush in the clear and makes this war more legitimate than ever!
It also puts democrats into a fatal position in the eyes of real Americans who see them as a party of leftist lunacy bent on destroying freedom in this great country.
Steve said...
k~:
Get bent. If you don't think stablizing the the Middle East if not the world, secures our economic freedom then move to North Korea ya socialist bastard. Kim Jung Il would love to have you, slaving away building his nuclear missiles.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 4:56:10 PM
Steve,
First off, my sarcastic response to you? Kiss this and I don't mean my ruby red lips :)
Do you even know the definition of socialist? Read my above posts now where am I a socialist??? lol'n
I believe in the Constitution to much. I usually don't waste my time responding to personal attacks by lunatics but you are an exception.
Economic freedom??? The Gov't is creating the largest deficit ever--which will be born by us the taxpayers. Take the time to read the current Census report about how many Americans are living at the poverty line and the increase in uninsured American--oh yeah stable economy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Forgive the typos this morning I'm multi-tasking lol'n
OTTMANN said...
Here are the FACTS...
Here's where your post starts out wrong. LOL.
Do you really think when Saddam is killed everything will be fine??? Then it will be in the "Name of XYZ-because this Cleric said so".
Sunnis- Do you really think there will be a sable IRAQ without the Sunnis? Do you think they will live under it if they don't approve of it? See Cougars post above about the history of the Sunnis. You might learn something.
9-11- Bin Laden is who we need for this one. It's a shame 4 years and we don't have the one responsible for that. WHERE is your SOLID CREDIBLE sources for Saddam being linked to 9-11.
*quote*It also puts democrats into a fatal position in the eyes of real Americans who see them as a party of leftist lunacy bent on destroying freedom in this great country. *end quote*
This comment is most disturbing.
Luckily we are in America and are AMERICANs all covered under the Constitution which gives us right of dissent.
What we have here is when people lose confidence in their leadership they turn on others to direct away from the bigger picture. I think if we had confidence in the leadership there wouldn't be so much dissent.
It's incredibly errogant to think you can set the standards of a REAL American.
I'll say again as I said in my post up there somewhere...history will judge this war no matter what any of us think. see above about 4 posts for that quote
As I've said many times, I'm neither Republican or Democrat I can see the faults with BOTH parties. I don't blindly follow anyone. I'm also not influenced by Right Wing or Left Wing radio as I said the only Wing I am is a Red Wings fan.
Ha...hahahaha!
Great post! I really love the part about Saddam hiding the WMDs in Iran! Funny stuff!
Oh, wait... you we're serious?
Just to clear up a few misconceptions and falsities...
"In the 40s people donated their time, money and money to the great cause. More than that they donated their spirit. America fought a tough battle for 4 years. lost a lot of good men and women, caused some innocent casualties, but stayed the course and got the job done."
WWII was a noble cause. I don't think you can compare apples to oranges here. Also, America entered the WWII theater because we were attacked by Japan. Before Pearl Harbor, the President and Congress wanted nothing to do with the conflict, despite what was well known to be happening in Europe. See... here's where joe-conservative pipes in, "Well, 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor that justified Iraq War II." The problem with that statement is blindingly obvious. We were not attacked by Saddam, or the Elite Republican Guard, or Bagdad Bob for that matter. We were brutally attacked by Al Qaeda, who planned and funded the attack with the help of Saudi money from the mountains of Afghanastan. True, Saddam Hussein is someone worth terminating (along with scores of other brutal dicatators and leaders alive today), but there is a major difference in funding suicide bombers in Palastine and funding a brutal attack on America. Our might and wrath should have stayed in Afghanastan until Bin Ladin and his crowd were captured or eliminated. Not a few thousand soldiers training local warlords, but maybe the 120,000 troops that are now sitting in Iraq.
"Saddam has been in power since 1979. He went to war with us at about 1990, I dont know the exact year. that proves that hes a threat, and one that can be dangerous. He obviously was building up military strength since he first came into power, enough to challenge the power of the U.S. But then he lost, and has been reaccumulating ever since(keep in mind bush's dad was in office at this time). I think he made a deal with al quida, and became the terrorist "patron" if you will. With the help of al quida, he got back up on his feet, and reassesed his strength (Saddam Hussien had the 4th most powerful army before we went to war with him) and prepared to declare war on america by doing some terrorists attacks (9/11)"
Okay... lets clear a few things up here also. Saddam invaded Kuwait, not the U.S. Justifiably, the U.S. led a multi-national coalition to force Saddam's armies out of Kuwait. Much of Saddam's military force (which, by the way, was given to him by the U.S. thanks to our friends Rumsfield and Co.) was either destroyed or badly damaged.
Face it, after the Desert Storm conflict, Hussein had neither the money nor the means to build his arsenal back up. I'm not saying he didn't want to. He did. But intent doesn't equal ability. There was, and let me repeat this..was NO connection between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime, other than both parties would have loved to see America in flames. Other than that, they were morally opposed to each other's doctrine. Also, true Saddam's army was the 4th most powerful in the world. In 1989, that is. Oh, and yes oil was one of the reasons we went to war in both wars. Kuwait is a major supplier to the U.S.. Control of Kuwaiti oil would have destablized the market and driven world prices up. The same holds true for Iraq War II. It was not the only reason, however. The taking of Iraq falls right in line with the long term goals of PNAC, who's members include much of our current government. The idea is to establish an American presense in much of the world through military force, starting with the Middle East region. So is it worth it? How is that oil helping you out at 3.50 a gallon?
Oh... and the WMD's? Still as vacant as the space inside of Bush's skull.
"We were brutally attacked by Al Qaeda, who planned and funded the attack with the help of Saudi money from the mountains of Afghanastan."
Well, saddam is removed, so who are we still fighting in iraq? Al quida. Bush obviously knew what he was doing as did the people who supported his decision. We knew that once al quida sees all our troops in one place, they would come out and fight us. Once again they underestimated us, as we are winning. Did you hear about the big terrorist meeting that iraqi civilians tipped us off about? We sent in our bombers, and leveled the building. If we hadnt gone to war to iraq, they wouldnt have been destroyed. what if they were planning another 9/11? Iraq, afganistan - either country we invade the terrorists will flock to it.
"Oh... and the WMD's? Still as vacant as the space inside of Bush's skull."
Well, bush has as much a brain as you or me, so according to your reasoning there are WMD's. Do you think that saddam would just come out and say here are my wmd's. . I give up? I dont think so. You are just refusing to believe it. Keep it up, your really going places.
He isn't refusing to beleive anything. There is NO PROOF of WMDs and therefore your argument is worthless.
another awful post of ill-thought out political rhetoric
"sit down and sing koombiyah" is something i would expect someone of your age to say. narrow minded and not helping political discussion develop in this country.
i wonder why you havent said anything about Saudi Arabia and the massive threat it poses?
Or thats right, because you haven't heard any rebulican "commentators" talk about it not advocate military action.
When you develop opinions of your own maybe, maybe I'll give an ounce of respect to you're beleifs until then you're just another mouth piece of the awful state of the ENTIRE political system
allisoni balloni: you dont always need proof to see the obvious.
anonymous no 1: no, the people who actually believe we can all sit down and sing koombiyah are the narrow minded ones. If we can get those people to stop talking that will help political discussion in this country.
anonymous no 2: I'll start talking about other things once the readers of my blog are in full agreement with me.
Post a Comment
<< Home