posted on May 11, 2004 03:32:35 PM new
No Linda. We keep the terrorists alive by believing there are millions of them to wipe out. That belief perpetuates itself.
posted on May 11, 2004 03:44:33 PM new
So THIS is your answer??
He understands that the war will be one of intellegence operations and policing.
ummmm...policing...that would be what the clinton administration did...and guess what?? It didn't work!!! The results were 9-11.
And on being one of intellegence.....reamond I would laugh if that answer weren't so sad.....kerry has a record of voting AGAINST our intellegence agencies. Surely you're joking????
posted on May 11, 2004 03:47:17 PM newIt didn't work!!!
It worked a helluva lot better than the mess Bush has gotten us into with his lies and stupidity.
Bush was president for 9-11. Bush could not handle the job and the terrorists unleashed the attack during his watch. But if you want to blame Clinton's, then I guess we can blame Bush 1 and Reagan for whatever happened during Clinton's terms.
The terrorists have played Bush like a cheap fiddle.
We're in a quagmire in Iraq while the terrorists still operate freely.
We need smarter people in the White House. The stupid zealots there now awill be the down fall of our country.
Send Bush back to Texas, maybe he'll become a TV preacher. His intellegence and his followers are better suited to that.
[ edited by Reamond on May 11, 2004 03:53 PM ]
posted on May 11, 2004 03:49:43 PM new
KD - Maybe you'd like to share what you think should be done about the terrorists. Should we just ignore the terrorists threats and pretend they don't mean what they say?....or give into them like Spain did?
And no one, except you, said anything about millions....it doesn't take millions...remember how few were able to pull off 9-11? It wasn't millions.
posted on May 11, 2004 03:54:14 PM new
reamond - If you consider 9-11 working a hell of a lot better....then [shaking my head in total disbelief]. So...what??? Are you saying that a couple more 9-11...maybe in our nuclear power plants would be much better than our fighting them in Iraq? I just can't believe you'd see it that way.
I am shocked....to say the least.
You didn't answer about his voting against funding/reducing funding for our intellegence agencies. How are we going to use them if his voting pattern has shown he doesn't think they're important?
posted on May 11, 2004 04:01:56 PM new
Linda, can you please tell me what advantage there was for Bush to take it upon himself to invade Iraq, what advantage has there been to Iraq and to America and the rest of the world?
As most agree, Bush has made a big mess there and stirred up a hornet's nest. Now the country is on the verge of civil war and it's full of insurgents and terrorists. US and coalition soldiers, as well as some of the innocent Iraqis and some of the contractors are being killed daily and the country is too unsafe to even reconstruct now. Many of the people now hate all Americans and they may hate them forever.
When you compare all of that to the 'perceived' threat that Saddam was to the US, it seems like such a waste, doesn't it?
posted on May 11, 2004 04:40:42 PM newI say nuke the place. screw it
Maybe that should be Plan B.
If we can't bring Muslims into the 21st century, then maybe we should bomb them back into the Stone Age.
Muslims can't seem to get along with anyone. They've declared holy wars on Jews, Christians and Hindus and when they can't fight the infidels, they fight fellow Muslims. Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Wahabbis, etc.
We might be just one or two major terrorist attacks away from Plan B.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on May 11, 2004 05:28:02 PM new
And it just gets more bizzar...
Now the republican from Oklahoma rationalizes the troture, murder and rape as OK because the prisoners in this cell block were murderers etc.. What a nut case.
So it seems that all that torture and rape and murder Saddam was doing was necessary to keep all the different factions in Iraq in line.
Why then take out Saddam in the first place if the only way we can keep things in line is by using the same tactics as Saddam ?
posted on May 11, 2004 05:38:38 PM new
Linda, what about the hundreds of terrorist "cells" operating in the U.S. Remember that? Was everyone caught or was it an embarrassing embellishment? I've heard nothing about how that's coming along, have you?
posted on May 11, 2004 05:43:32 PM new
CBS and Dan Rather, who felt it worth more to release the photos and show this publicly on "60 Minutes", than the lives of any Americans in Iraq, should be charged with murder through the "appeasement of the enemy".
And we can thank Jimmy Carter for bringing us 9/11
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 11, 2004 05:45:58 PM new Now the republican from Oklahoma rationalizes the troture, murder and rape as OK because the prisoners in this cell block were murderers etc.. What a nut case.
I suppose Inhofe thinks like Rush Limbaugh...these guys were just blowing off steam?
posted on May 11, 2004 05:47:36 PM new
kiara - I will answer your question by saying this.
I have many times posted clinton's statements about the needed and necessary regime change required in Iraq. He supported it and during his administration the Iraq Liberation Act was passed.
HE stated Iraq had these weapons...I've posted links previously to prove that - a million times.
Then here's his statement without YOUR 20/20 hindsight on how he saw the situation.
Taken from the left leaning Guardian.....even though I have no hope of it changing anyone's mind......I will continue to state this war came about because of SADDAM's lack of willingness to cooperation....a final UN Resolution....a 15-0 vote by it's security council....it wasn't only this President who felt saddam had weapons nor was he the only person professing there were womd in Iraq.
=======================
Comment
Trust Tony's judgment
Bill Clinton
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian
Last October, when I spoke at the Labour conference in Blackpool, I supported the efforts of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to renew efforts to eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and to try to accomplish this through the UN.
In November, the UN security council adopted unanimously resolution 1441, giving Saddam a "final opportunity" to disarm, after 12 years of defying UN resolutions requiring him to do so. The resolution made it clear that continued sanctions were not sufficient and that continued defiance would lead to serious consequences.
The credit for 1441 belongs in large measure to Blair, who saw it as a chance to disarm Saddam in a way that strengthened the UN and preserved the Atlantic alliance. Unfortunately, the consensus behind 1441 has unravelled.
Saddam has destroyed some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The really important issues relating to chemical and biological weapons remain unresolved.
In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed.
Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.
On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.
Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews.
Under the proposed resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the use of force to depose Saddam.
Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.
The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion and he still might have disarmed without invasion and bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.
A s Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.
I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.
In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.
· Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States
posted on May 11, 2004 06:25:29 PM new
Linda thinks that Clinton was in support of the preemptive unilateral invasion of Iraq and NO amount of evidence will convince her otherwise. I suggest that we just ignore this piece of ignorance and continue with the original topic.
posted on May 11, 2004 06:33:28 PM new
I agree, Helen.
I can't even imagine how the family must feel to see their son on television. It's horrific to even think about.
Efforts should have been mostly concentrated in Afghanistan this past year and the world may have been a safer place than it is now but no one can turn back time.
posted on May 11, 2004 07:07:43 PM new
Al-Jazeera, an Arabic-language TV channel, broadcast a video it said showed two masked Islamic Jihad activists taking responsibility and displaying what they said was the head of an Israeli soldier on a table in front of them.
Israel TV carried the footage but electronically obscured the head.
posted on May 11, 2004 07:16:03 PM new
The video that I watched was linked in someone's comment on another site...Metafilter. It showed the head being cut off and afterwards held up for the camera.
posted on May 11, 2004 07:48:06 PM new
So let's see, the "freedom fighters" put grisly nasty things on your TV and Americans "torture" prisoners by making them wear doggie leashes, women's undies and make nude pyramids.
I don't know, but if I had a choice, I'd go for the undies.
And if Bush isn't too bright he must be a lot smarter than Hussein. Just think, since he didn't have anything nasty, all Hussein had to do was let the inspectors into the palaces and every other place they wanted to go. Yup, he could have cut the legs right out from under that silly American President.
posted on May 11, 2004 07:58:04 PM newSo let's see, the "freedom fighters" put grisly nasty things on your TV and Americans "torture" prisoners by making them wear doggie leashes, women's undies and make nude pyramids.
According to Lindsey Graham and other republican Senators that have seen all the pictures, there is also evidence of murder and rape by American prison guards. Graham says that investigations for murder and rape will procede from the pictorial evidence.
While he didn't say that our guards cut off anyones head, I suppose it doesn't make much difference if you're murderered, you're still dead.
We might as well have left Saddam in power.
And if Bush isn't too bright he must be a lot smarter than Hussein. Just think, since he didn't have anything nasty, all Hussein had to do was let the inspectors into the palaces and every other place they wanted to go. Yup, he could have cut the legs right out from under that silly American President.
Yeah, just like Bush would allow Iraqis to search the White House.
And Bush doesn't need anyone to cut his legs out from under him - he does quite well all by himself.
posted on May 12, 2004 07:01:29 PM new
Helen- first you said it is too horrible to watch, then you said you saw it. Did you see it or not? I saw it today and it turned my stomach. It will polarize people further. It will cause you to think as a pacifist or cause you to realize that there are some who want to kill all Americans(and others) and that they must be stopped. I choose the latter.
Yes, stusi, I saw the video and described it as, "too horrible to watch".
I also realize that there are terrorists who want to kill Americans and that Bush policy has resulted in an increased number of such terrorists all over the world. His war on terrorism in Iraq has provided a stage for terrorists where there were none previous to our invasion of that country. It's clear that combat is the wrong way to stop terrorism which should be a police and investigative activity.
We "stayed the course" in Vietnam and while doing so, 58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese were killed. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail and this kind of war will end.
posted on May 13, 2004 03:49:37 PM new
Helen- "a stage for terrorists where there were none previous to our invasion of that country"? No previous terrorist stage would include Al Jazeera propaganda, correct? "...to stop terrorism should be a police or investigative activity"? I can't fathom this. How would you define police? Those armed with weapons? If you have a large number in another country it is an army, isn't it? Do you believe that the anti-Saddam Iraqis had this capability? If your son was beheaded, would that wake you up? I guess not. It all falls on deaf ears. Yes, this may have become another Viet Nam in the sense that we do not seem to be making any progress. My answer is to send more troops, yours is to withdraw. Iraq would then be ripe for a major terrorist stronghold.
No, stusi. I'm not being influenced by Aljazeera propaganda and I should add, not by Bush propaganda either. There is no evidence that Saddam was plotting with Al Qaeda terrorists. Right now, we are at war with the people that Bush claimed he wanted to free. And, terrorists are taking advantage of the unstable situation that our preemptive, unplanned invasion has caused. The choice to stay will entail substantial loss of life and enormous cost over a long period of time during which we will have few allies -- and it's unlikely that the situation will ever be resolved politically. If we stay, what will happen if the army is needed elsewhere for more serious threats?
By "police" I mean special forces aided by investigative agencies such as the CIA in cooperation with the international community.
