Good debate

[mr.Curmudgeon]

BREAKING NEWS:
In response to my above posting regarding Kerry's mystery object at the debates, it has now been discovered to be the following:

(Via Fark)

[DrewKaree]

Drew,

Are you F*cking kidding me? You link to an article by REED IRVINE???
Why don't I just give you George Soros number and have him clear up my argument for you...I'm sure you'll listen to him.

Hmm.  The Drudge report is decried as partisan and often wrong....yet when they agree with you, they are put forth as expert testimony.  I put forth information from Factcheck.org, and you dismiss it as something that skews stories both ways....you post stories from The N.Y. Times, CNN, and countless other left-leaning outlets, but I'm "not F*cking for real"  

Oh, BTW, the language....it's getting tiresome.  You clamored on endlessly about us ceasing the political talk because it would divide members of a friendly community, yet you're the one who can't seem to eliminate the language intended to divide from your posts.  It's hard to understand what you really mean when you're talking from both sides of your mouth  

Pray tell, where should the great unwashed go to get their information?  I ask, because you seem to want to dismiss any information that disagrees with you.  Are you publishing a newspaper you need to prop up?  You cry about my politically biased information, and yet, I'm supposed to remain quiet and choke down your garbage that's equally biased.  I used to think you seriously COULDN'T want to censor information, but your continual posts that anything you view to be "out there" can't possibly have a shred of truth to it, and should be ignored.  I still believe you don't wish to censor information, but only because once in a while, they may say something you want to use to say "SEE?  SEE?  I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO!"  You just wish they'd run their stories by you, as you think you're so much better qualified to tell us all what is and isn't "fact".

Here's some more "Link-fests" you are more qualified to refute, based on the fact that "they're not you"

Slate's article.  Check it out

How about Ritter's own words?  Check THIS out

I know, there's probably "gaping flaws" with these two links as well.  I wonder how many people find it funny that while I can keep coming up with links, all you can do is ask "are you F*cking kidding me?" and expect me to find some NY Times or SanFran Chronicle article to say a democratic position is wrong.  

[shmokes]

Mr. C, I really think you should curb your enthusiasm just a bit.  Two possible consequences of your continued....passion, I think, are:

1- The thread will get closed, which always irritates the hell out of me cos I often miss days at a time lately due to my work and school load being so heavy.

or

2- People, even those who lean left, will come to think of you as a liberal TaPilot and write you off as a nut to be ignored.

I suppose that you would not want to cause the premature death of a thread (especially one about a debate that your guy clearly won) and I can only imagine the horror that must go through your head at the mere thought of people lumping you into any category that also included TaPilot.

p.s.  Thanks for your consideration of me when writing your posts, Drew.  Trust me, I'm doing you a favor  

[DrewKaree]

Shmokes, just trying to do my part...I know the nights in Utah can't be the hustle-bustle in other more cosmopolitan areas, and didn't want to put you to sleep early although if you have class in the morning, I might HELP!

Fundamental question for Drew and TA:

So, where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Thank you. End of story.

I'm tired of the constant clamoring that we went into Iraq because they had WMD's.  MrC, your side has succeeded in getting the American public to forget what led up to us declaring war, and WHY.  It wasn't to "go git all them thar WMD's".  Your "end of story" ignores the beginning of the story.  why did we take the actions we did?  Read this....if you don't want to read it all, I'll probably be replying after MrC selectively picks what he views as his reasons.  I'll be there to put it back into context again  

MrC, the information regarding Sadaam having them has been rehashed numerous times.  For some reason, you don't want to face those facts.  I can't produce WMD's, no we haven't found them, and the reasons Bush gave regarding military action have long ago been overlooked....it's like the "Tastes Great/Less Filling".  Constant attention to an issue gets people to think "it MUST be what we have to look at, otherwise they wouldn't keep talking about it"....I can't sit here and put toothpicks in your eyes to open them.  It's just too much to ask.  You've GOT to do some of the work yourself.  Perhaps if hatred didn't fill the rest of your mind, you'd have enough free space to insert some fact in there.

And when Saddam did give or sell a WMD to the terrorists and they did use them on NYC - you'd blame Bush for doing nothing when he had the chance.

Man you are THICK boy. HE.DID.NOT.HAVE.THEM.

The verdict is still out on that to ME, but I'm guessing to you Syria is just a friendly nation full of gumdrops and rainbows.  That's what we get for being "thick"...oh, and the charge he levies is still valid.  Does "what did they know and when did they know it" ring a bell?  

As for US being thick, are you giving Kerry a pass?  We didn't have access to the information that he did, but he opted to believe the intel and voted accordingly.  Does that make Kerry MORE thick?  Don't let the fact that you're working to re-elect him cloud your response

[DrewKaree]

DID I SAY COUNTLESS?, yes, countless OTHER COUNTRIES WHO BELIEVED AND STATED THAT SADAAM HAD WMD'S

How cute. Somehow everyone else is at fault for believing FALSE INFORMATION disseminated by the United States of America.

I included the part you quote from me.  Why?  The words "everyone else is at fault" were never uttered by me, and your bald-faced lies only serve to discredit you further.  The U.S. and other countries' intelligence agencies all agreed at that time that Sadaam had WMD's.  I've stated it againg, because I don't think you read it the first time.  Remember that "international coalition" Kerry espoused?  Those folks...we should ask for their help, but not believe their intelligence.  What help should we ask for?  Water bottles?  Band-Aids?  Rubber bands?  Yeah, military intelligence worldwide that agrees with us...we should ignore it, no matter if it's the millionth country telling us their stuff says the same thing.

t's their fault they had faith in the greatest super power on the planet. It's their fault they'd be so foolish as to trust our president.

And somehow, with Kerry clearly stating that we are going it alone in Iraq, they should trust YOUR candidate, when anyone with eyes can see that we AREN'T GOING IT ALONE.  

We'll as they say in Texas (and probably Tennessee), fool me once........you can't get fooled again!

I know...the different dialects in the U.S.  Screwy, hey?  You should hear 'em in MA...they pronounce it "I actually DID get fooled again, before I wasn't fooled"

[DrewKaree]

Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Theres those DNC talkin gpoints again.

Talking Points? It happens to be the truth.

"NY Times Says Cheney and Rice Knowingly Misled Us About Iraq's Nuclear Capability" (NYTIMES - October 3, 2004
)

I'll let you answer yourself

If this is what you'd put forth as unbiased info, there's no hope for this thread.

Hey, how is the Times doing?  Did they ever deal with that reporter...what was his name....can I just call him Mr. Pantsonfire, or is that too biased?    I'm almost positive that it couldn't happen again

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I suppose that you would not want to cause the premature death of a thread (especially one about a debate that your guy clearly won) and I can only imagine the horror that must go through your head at the mere thought of people lumping you into any category that also included TaPilot.

Now why would I want to cause the premature death of a political thread on an arcade forum?  

As for being lumped in with TAPilot, even if you got me an electric car and a greenpeace membership it'd be far from enough to counter his existence.

I've had my fun, as I mentioned earlier, I'm going to be away from the political forums online in exchange for political forums in the real world. You guys/gals of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders will be rid of me. No tears! I'm joining the ranks of the Kerry campaign and we've got a lot of work ahead. (To preempt Drew, yes, I am going to stifle free speech, disenfranchise voters and stuff ballot boxes, maybe even chow down on a few babies while I'm at it!)

mrC

[DrewKaree]

(To preempt Drew, yes, I am going to stifle free speech, disenfranchise voters and stuff ballot boxes, maybe even chow down on a few babies while I'm at it!)

mrC

Can you tell us where you'll be enacting your "campaign drives" so we can collect news clippings and make you a nice scrapbook for when you come back?  Just check the NY Times?  

Whatever you do, if some guy in a blue "uniform" wants to fit you with some shiny new silver "bracelets", make sure you make enough of a scene in thanking him for it that it makes the evening news.  I wanna tell my wife "I know that guy!"  

[DrewKaree]

I can't do this anymore tonight.  I don't know how TA can sit there and read misinformation after misinformation after misinformation by you and continue to respond, when your pat answer is "That source can't possibly be credible.  Why?  How dare you question me!  Why?  Because I said so"   "Bush is a lying snake in the grass chickenhawk snotface doody headed moron"   "I can't believe you said that, but a few posts previous, I used your same idea to bolster MY argument"  

[TA Pilot]

What's up with that?

One wonders the same thing about the obsession with Haliburton - perhap the phallic nature of an drilling derrick?

The only reason anyone cares about them at all is because Cheney used to run the company.  Naturally, that means that what Cheney does in office can only be judged by its relationship to the company her used to run.

I mean...  Haliburton got a no-bid contracts in Serbia under Clinton - where were the screams?

Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo.
 

[TA Pilot]

I don't know how TA can sit there and read misinformation after misinformation after misinformation by you and continue to respond

My motivation is my own self-enetrtainment.
Why do you think I posted the pics off the boys w/ my rifles and have that "assault weapon" sig?  I like driving liberals nuts.

See, thsese guys wouldnt know a sound argument it if stuck them in the rectal cavity with a hot poker (though it might singe their nose hairs...)- so there isnt any real sense in arguing with them like you would normal people.

Their support for Kerry comes from one thing, and one thing alone - their hatred for Bush.

Theor hatred for Bush comes from one things and one thing alone - (R)

People like that simply cannot be reasoned with - so its stupid to try.  Just remember that when reading their posts and formulating your responses.

[DrewKaree]

People like that simply cannot be reasoned with - so its stupid to try.  Just remember that when reading their posts and formulating your responses.

MrC can't be reasoned with, I see, but I can't sit by while he continues to stick and move like a boxer - stick: Bush lied, information disagreeing with my point is ridiculous, he'd cheat on his blood tests if he could   move:  now that I've proved (to myself) that you lied, what about this ridiculous point that says more of the same?  What?  answer your questions honestly?  I can't be bothered  

Since we're on the topic of arguing with them....anybody else hear that there are voting districts where, when the quantity of people over 18 (voting age, that is) is counted, there just happens to be hundreds (a few number thousands) more voters registered above and beyond that number!  But with the stories surfacing similar to mine in Wisconsin, we're supposed to believe that the registration programs submitting ballots that don't even have I.D. aren't working to "help" the coming election....you know, help, as in Chicago style?

Did you hear the new fraudulent voter registration rally cheer?  Hey Hey how many dead have you registered today?

[shmokes]

TA,  my hatred for Bush is a perfectly valid reason to vote for Kerry.  I'm liberal.  Kerry is not as liberal as I'd like him to be, but his policies clearly would represent my views better than Bush's.  It is beyond obvious that you will never vote for a democrat?  Is that because you're a moronic partisan political hack?  Maybe.  But more likely you are aware that the chances that a democrat is going to come along who lines up ideologically with your are pretty remote.  Even acknowledging the possibility that I would consider voting for some moderate republican some day, Bush is clearly not that person.  He's extremely conservative.

Also don't forget that the next president will likely nominate at least one, and up to four Supreme Court jusices.  If Bush is able to nominate just one, to replace Sandra Day O'Conner, Roe v. Wade will be overturned.  Surely you can understand how important that is (for people on both sides of the issue).  Whoever wins, though, will probably determine which party controls the Judicial branch of government for the foreseeable future.  Supreme Court justices serve for life.  It's rightly important to a democrat that justice slots be filled by democrat presidents.  When a president faces the possibility of nominating not one, but FOUR Supreme Court justices, the stakes are pretty high.

It's called thinking strategically.  Would Kerry be my first choice?  No.  Does that mean I should automatically vote for Bush?  Of course not, because he's just plain further from my views than Kerry is.  Please understand that we are given only two viable choices in a Presidential Election.  You choose the best of the two.  You don't just evaluate one of them and, if he doesn't meet your idea of the perfect candidate automatically vote for the other guy.  

You said yourself that we're voting for Kerry simply because we HATE Bush.  Well, if we HATE (as you put it) one candidate.  And we don't hate the other one, doesn't it kinda make sense that we would vote for the other one, even if we don't absolutely love him?  Common, put your thinking cap on here.

Your being blinded by your dogma.  You point to some irrational all-encompassing hatred liberals have for the President and have apparently forgotton President Clinton.  Do you remember Gingrich and Starr?  You impeached him.  Have you never listened to Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter?

It's politics.  Both sides play the same game.  I think your side plays it far dirtier than mine.  You probably disagree.  Either way, you seem to live in a fantastically naive little world.

[Mameotron]

Is MrC already at work?

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/news/1001_ballotbattle.html

[Crazy Cooter]

Put another log on the fire...
The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188101/
Cook me up some bacon and some beans...

[shmokes]

Well, that's 2 for 2 for the democrats.  I'm more and more hopeful by the day.  Cheney was the Bush team's best chance for putting one of the debate wins on their side.  And if Bush can't win on the foreign policy debate, it's really doubtful that he can be successful when the focus shifts to domestic policy and the economy.

[fredster]

2 for 2?

You really believe that Edwards can tie Chaney's shoes ?

Man, we didn't watch the same debate.  Chaney outclassed and out manuevered Edwards all the way around.

Chaney laid out the case for Iraq, countered on every point that Edwards had.

Sorry, 1 for 1.

Friday, it will be 1 for 2 , R's winning.

[fredster]

Crazy Cooter - Your article says some good stuff.

"Hussein had the intention of making WMD.. Statements Hussein made to debriefers after his capture that bolster administration assertions, including his statement that his past possession of weapons of mass destruction "was one of the reasons he had survived so long."

And also states : "The report includes... evidence of corruption and abuse in the U.N.-monitored oil-for-food program, and dual-use equipment -- which could be used for either peaceful or military programs -- that U.N. inspectors may not have been aware of."

So the UN was on the take, Saddam was comming out of the box with the intentions of creating more WMD aided by our "allies" and friends at the UN who were on the take for billions.

Makes the case for Bush all the way. No question.

[Crazy Cooter]

  Are we reading the same article?  I don't think the UN was "on the take".

You've removed some very important details with your "...".

"The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials"

"...the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq."

"...his [saddam] statement that his past possession of weapons of mass destruction "was one of the reasons he had survived so long."

"dual-use equipment" - I think the article was refering to Iraq using materials inappropriately.  ie:  They get fertilizer for the neighborhoods and build bombs instead.  (That didn't happen AFAIK, but that's the only example I could think of.)

My take on the situation is till the same.
1- There were/are more important threats than Iraq.
2- Saddam wasn't "on the verge" of any attack.
3- Saddam is full of hot air.  I think he was refering to people being afraid of him since he said he had WMD, so they left him alone.

Is the world better without him in power?  Time will tell.  Should we have focused our efforts on N. Korea?  Time will tell.  Can you trust the French?  heheh.

Does this support Bush?  I don't think so.  Bush took the stance that Saddam was standing on the White House lawn with a grenade and we had to get him before he got us.  That was simply not the case.  Sure Saddam wished he was, but there are other countries that we should have been looking at.  IMO, Bush was staring at a distant tree and not looking at the forest all around him.

[saint]

Actually, it appears the debate was essentially a draw, with a slight edge to Edwards, based on average poll results.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/debate.main/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134593,00.html
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10246.shtml
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/3787345/detail.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3717918.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#survey

The Republicans think Cheney  won, the Democrats think Edwards won. Probably the only interesting result is that (based on CBS' poll I think, insert-your-own-joke-about-CBS-credibility-here) undecided voters think Edwards won. As of this moment, the MS-NBC poll has Edwards leading 59% to 41%. It's an active poll, so the %'s will likely have changed by the time anyone checks the link...

--- saint

2 for 2?

You really believe that Edwards can tie Chaney's shoes ?

Man, we didn't watch the same debate.  Chaney outclassed and out manuevered Edwards all the way around.

Chaney laid out the case for Iraq, countered on every point that Edwards had.

Sorry, 1 for 1.

Friday, it will be 1 for 2 , R's winning.

[GGKoul]

From todays headlines.

UN Inspector:  Iraq had no WMD before invasion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

[GGKoul]

Fact Checking the Debate... Interesting read...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188565/

[shmokes]

While it certainly was not the shut-out that we saw in the first presidential debate, as Saint pointed out, the scales seem to tip in Edward's favor.  Even a tie, however, is considered a win for the non-incumbent based on historical effects of debates.  Incumbents are expected to win.  A tie, therefore, would technically be a win for Edwards (and, once again, this debate was not a tie; Edwards is being called the winner by a small to medium margin).  The only meaningful measure of who won the debate is who the public perceives as winning.  It doesn't matter who is supposedly more credible, in control of the facts, charismatic, witty, consistent, nervous, or likeable if the public thinks the other guy won.  Maybe by some intellectual standard someone might argue that the win was undeserved, as the democrats will argue about the 2000 Bush/Gore debates, but that's just a waste of breath.  Perception is reality.  

Granted, historical patterns do not always hold true, but it is a very consistent pattern.  

Fredster, to you I would point out that your opinion is irrelevant as to whether Edwards won the debate.  Mine is as well.  Neither candidate had any chance whatever of changing our minds.  That's why polling is important.  

And is Cheney really so rich that he hires out to have his shoes tied -- not only that but the qualifications for the job are so high that even a United States senator is not up to the task?  

[DrewKaree]

Fredster, to you I would point out that your opinion is irrelevant as to whether Edwards won the debate.  Mine is as well.  Neither candidate had any chance whatever of changing our minds.  That's why polling is important.

well the debate last night changed my mind.  I want Cheney to run in '08.  Does that count  And I thought you were voting for Marilyn Chambers....does this mean you're voting for Kerry Edwards (speaking of pR0n names )?  
 

And is Cheney really so rich that he hires out to have his shoes tied -- not only that but the qualifications for the job are so high that even a United States senator is not up to the task?  

Yes, he is that rich, and kind of (only a DEMOCRATIC U.S. Senator isn't up to the task)    It's GREAT being a rich evil conservative!  

[TA Pilot]

"The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials"

What do you suppose would have happened, had the inspectors gone in and found nothing?

France and Russia would have fallen over themselves, proposing resolutions to lift sanctions - after all, Iraq is "clean".  Right?

And THEN...   he reconstitutes his weapons.



"...the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq."

Where are the weapons he was known to have in 1998?



Is the world better without him in power?  Time will tell.  

This is like asking if it the world is better off w/o Stalin or Hitler - only certain kinds of people would entertain the possibility of anything but a resounding YES!!



Bush took the stance that Saddam was standing on the White House lawn with a grenade and we had to get him before he got us.

Absolutely false.  Once Saddam gets the grenade, its too late.  Bush wanted to be sure he never got it.

And he did that in the only way it could be done.

[Crazy Cooter]

Holy crap... TA & I are almost going to agree on something...

"Once Saddam gets the grenade, its too late.  Bush wanted to be sure he never got it."

If another country holds the hypothetical grenade and is about to throw it, I say we smack them.  No arguement there.  BUT, if we're going to get all pre-emptive all the worlds ass, there's going to be a LOT of smackin' going on.

SO... I'll ask again, why Iraq?  North Korea has that grenade.  A few of them.  They openly told us that before we went into Iraq.  And what about Iran?  Out of all the countries we have issues with, why go into Iraq that is a "lesser evil"?  THAT is one of my biggest issues with the current administration.  If I was hosting a debate, that's the question I'd ask.

Somebody double check my dates but:
Dec. 10th, 2002 N. Korea said they were going to start making nukes.
We went into Iraq on March 19th, 2003.
I just don't get it.  If you support going into Iraq, shouldn't you be demanding we go into N. Korea (and Iran for that matter, but I know less about their nuke program)?  And I don't want to hear about humanitarian issues because there are all kinds of other countries we could include in that debate.

[shmokes]

Holy crap... TA & I are almost going to agree on something...

"Once Saddam gets the grenade, its too late.  Bush wanted to be sure he never got it."

If another country holds the hypothetical grenade and is about to throw it, I say we smack them.  No arguement there.  BUT, if we're going to get all pre-emptive all the worlds ass, there's going to be a LOT of smackin' going on.

SO... I'll ask again, why Iraq?  North Korea has that grenade.  A few of them.  They openly told us that before we went into Iraq.  And what about Iran?  Out of all the countries we have issues with, why go into Iraq that is a "lesser evil"?  THAT is one of my biggest issues with the current administration.  If I was hosting a debate, that's the question I'd ask.

Somebody double check my dates but:
Dec. 10th, 2002 N. Korea said they were going to start making nukes.
We went into Iraq on March 19th, 2003.
I just don't get it.  If you support going into Iraq, shouldn't you be demanding we go into N. Korea (and Iran for that matter, but I know less about their nuke program)?  And I don't want to hear about humanitarian issues because there are all kinds of other countries we could include in that debate.

N. Korea has no oil.  N. Korea does not have a statue of it's leader with Bush's head at his feat, LOL.

[Mameotron]

N. Korea has no oil.  N. Korea does not have a statue of it's leader with Bush's head at his feat, LOL.

Apparently everyone has decided to forget why we went after Saddam in the first place (Desert Storm / Desert Shield).

Saddam Hussein invaded and captured Kuwait.

I've heard everyone crying about how harmless Saddam was and we have no reason to invade since there were no WMDs, blah blah blah...

What's to stop him from buying more conventional weapons, SCUD missiles (and Bio warheads), and then attacking Kuwait again?  Or maybe some other neighbor of his who has oil fields he wants?


Who has N. Korea invaded lately?

[TA Pilot]

SO... I'll ask again, why Iraq?

Gotta start somewhere.  Taking care of Iraq eliminates the Iraqi threat and it sets us up for an effective run against Iran, if necessary.

And its not yet clear that direct military action will be necessary against NK and Iran; this was not the case with Iraq.



If you support going into Iraq, shouldn't you be demanding we go into N. Korea (and Iran for that matter, but I know less about their nuke program)?

Only if you beleive that direct military action is the only way to deal with the situation.   That we invaded Iraq to deal with the Iraqi threat in no way necessitates that we invade Country X to deal with their threat.

[TA Pilot]

N. Korea has no oil.  

And where is all that free Iraqi oil?

[fredster]

The "..." were glossing over the portions I had.  Clearly, Iraq now or later would have presented a big problem.  If Kerry or Edwards had bothered to show up for thier Intel meetings, maybe they could have evaluated the information more closely. After all, they spoke out so eloquently in favor of the invasion at the time.

If anyone believes that at the time anybody was not clear that GWB would invade with authorization by law, then I'm afraid they weren't paying attention.

Saddam was going to get out of the box.  He was going to reconstitute his weapons.  His sons were maniacs too.  That country represented a stumbling block to the us in preventing new terrorists with new weapons emerging from the middle east.

He was paying the families of terrorists for their death, he was harboring terrorists and sanctioning training camps.  The broad view on the war on terror is to stop terrorist completely.

The US is the most powerful country in the world. It's our moral obligation to protect ourselves and others.

Maybe we should ask these people if getting rid of Saddam was a good idea or not----

[patrickl]

Saddam was going to get out of the box.  He was going to reconstitute his weapons.  His sons were maniacs too.  That country represented a stumbling block to the us in preventing new terrorists with new weapons emerging from the middle east.

He was paying the families of terrorists for their death, he was harboring terrorists and sanctioning training camps.  The broad view on the war on terror is to stop terrorist completely.

Where are you getting that from? All info I have seen indicated that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact terrorists hated his guts and vice versa. The religeous group Saddam belongs to (and Saddam in particular) is despised by the anti-US terrorists and Saddam combatted the terrorists as brutally as the world ever witnessed. They hate each other about as much as all muslims seem to hate (north) americans. The terrorists actually blame the US for Saddam since they helped him to power to begin with. Saying saddam helped terrorists is about as insane as the connections some people try to make between Bush family and Bin Laden.

All that the Iraq situation is doing is creating a bigger playingfield for terrorists. The US will leave Iraq soon and then the country will fall into the hands of the shia muslims. That's the group were the anti-US terrorists seem to come from mostly. Now that Saddam is no longer oprressing them and the US will leave, what do you think they will do? The way the Bush is mishandling the situation there only helps to inflame the shia muslims.

Bush might have set out to do the proper thing but he completely goofed up. Now the whole region is a mess and they (the people who live there) all blame it on the US. Angry people without any money are prime recruiting material for terrorist groups.

Wars don't counter terrorism. You can't stop that by conventional forces (ask the israelies, brittans or russians and for that matter the US force that went to vietnam). Actually wars like this only provoke terrorists. Don't forget that the september 11 attacks were essentially punishment for the first desert storm (not so much the war on Iraq perhaps, but still). This war will only bring more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. Of course it's now mostly concentrated inside Iraq, but that will change when the US leaves Iraq.

[DrewKaree]

This war will only bring more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. Of course it's now mostly concentrated inside Iraq, but that will change when the US leaves Iraq.

I don't even know where to begin with you.  I cannot fathom your logic whatsoever.  We were attacked, which is our fault, we acted, and this will bring more attacks, which is our fault, and it will continue to be our fault each and every time something happens to us, by that friggen logic.

Will there ever be a situation under which the fault for action against the U.S. would be the responsibility of a lunatic terrorist group, or do you believe that the U.S. is that lunatic terrorist group?



Alright.  To solve the evil image we have in the U.S., I propose that tomorrow, we free Sadaam and return him to Iraq.  Since we won't need to spend all that money on the war, we give it to Sadaam to rebuild his country.  Haliburton will have to help, or no more "no bid contracts" for them.  Oh, and we pull out each and every troop from there.  Lastly, we go to the U.N. and work to pass a proposition where France and Russia can renew their Oil-For-Food programs and continue selling them arms and weapons/weapon supplies.

Our biggest mistake was in meddling in Iraq, so returning Sadaam will fix everything, since he didn't have WMD's and was busy complying with the U.N. resolutions and wasn't a threat to his own people, and wasn't looking to develop WMD's.

You've got to agree with that solution, right?

[DrewKaree]

All info I have seen indicated that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact terrorists hated his guts and vice versa.

So the terrorists hate Sadaam's guts

The religeous group Saddam belongs to (and Saddam in particular) is despised by the anti-US terrorists and Saddam combatted the terrorists as brutally as the world ever witnessed. They hate each other about as much as all muslims seem to hate (north) americans. The terrorists actually blame the US for Saddam since they helped him to power to begin with.

The terrorists hate Sadaam's guts, and they blame the U.S. for Sadaam's actions against them

Saying saddam helped terrorists is about as insane as the connections some people try to make between Bush family and Bin Laden.

O.K.  So if I follow you here so far, Sadaam wouldn't help terrorists.  The terrorists hate his guts, blame us for him, and Sadaam brutally fights them.

All that the Iraq situation is doing is creating a bigger playingfield for terrorists. The US will leave Iraq soon and then the country will fall into the hands of the shia muslims. That's the group were the anti-US terrorists seem to come from mostly.

The US will leave Iraq, soon after, the anti-US muslim group will come into power.

Now that Saddam is no longer oprressing them and the US will leave, what do you think they will do? The way the Bush is mishandling the situation there only helps to inflame the shia muslims.

It's Bush's idiocy that is making the anti-US muslim group despise us more.



So by your reasoning, Sadaam was busy fighting all the andti-US muslim groups for Bush, and doing a damn fine job of it.  Instead of Bush realizing this and heading over to personally shake Sadaam's hand, he just had a bug up his @$$ to beat him down for daddy.  Not realizing the stellar job of defending the U.S. that Sadaam was doing for us, he went in and screwed everything up, making the world a less safe place for the U.S. by REMOVING Sadaam, which in turn will bring the wrath of the groups Sadaam was so brutally fighting for us.  


How long each night do you sleep, because dreaming this crap up must take HOURS!

[Mameotron]

Don't forget that the september 11 attacks were essentially punishment for the first desert storm (not so much the war on Iraq perhaps, but still).

That's right, desert storm was because Saddam was brutally fighting against the US-hating muslim terrorist groups by attacking Kuwait and taking over their oil fields.  George Bush just screwed it all up by answereing the frantic calls of the OPEC countries.

[fredster]

Patrickl,

Vietnam was lost because the US lost it's will to fight. People like Kerry infiltrated the US and took our resolve.  If you know anything of that war you know that we were very close to victory but we held back.  Vietnam isn't a good comparison to this situation at all.

Leaving these people alone is the Nevil Chamberland way of doing things.  If you think we should just take our ball and go home, well, rocky the squirl said it best when he said "ah that trick never works".

Terrorists are pouring into Iraq.  Looks like a central point to fight them.  Bush says it all the time, we fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home.

You haven't been paying attention on the ties between the terrorist groups and Iraq.  the 9/11 report said there was no direct corelation between 9/11 and Saddam.  It doesn't say there were NO ties. Al-Queada isn't the ONLY terrorist organization.

The "War on Terror" was on ALL terrorists.  

Since you have conclusively stated that wars don't prevent terrorism, exactly what does prevent terrorism?  

How about if we all just become Muslims.  Will that bring peace to the world??

[TA Pilot]

Vietnam was lost because the US lost it's will to fight. People like Kerry infiltrated the US and took our resolve.  If you know anything of that war you know that we were very close to victory but we held back.  Vietnam isn't a good comparison to this situation at all.

I wonder how many Gulf War II veterans are going to come home and declare themselves "war criminals", as Kerry did.


Terrorists are pouring into Iraq.  Looks like a central point to fight them.  Bush says it all the time, we fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home.

And they say he's an idiot.

We're on the strategic offensive - we're forcing them to fight us there because they can't afford to let us stay.  This is far better than the alternative.

[patrickl]

All info I have seen indicated that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact terrorists hated his guts and vice versa.

So the terrorists hate Sadaam's guts

The religeous group Saddam belongs to (and Saddam in particular) is despised by the anti-US terrorists and Saddam combatted the terrorists as brutally as the world ever witnessed. They hate each other about as much as all muslims seem to hate (north) americans. The terrorists actually blame the US for Saddam since they helped him to power to begin with.

The terrorists hate Sadaam's guts, and they blame the U.S. for Sadaam's actions against them

Saying saddam helped terrorists is about as insane as the connections some people try to make between Bush family and Bin Laden.

O.K.  So if I follow you here so far, Sadaam wouldn't help terrorists.  The terrorists hate his guts, blame us for him, and Sadaam brutally fights them.

All that the Iraq situation is doing is creating a bigger playingfield for terrorists. The US will leave Iraq soon and then the country will fall into the hands of the shia muslims. That's the group were the anti-US terrorists seem to come from mostly.

The US will leave Iraq, soon after, the anti-US muslim group will come into power.

Now that Saddam is no longer oprressing them and the US will leave, what do you think they will do? The way the Bush is mishandling the situation there only helps to inflame the shia muslims.

It's Bush's idiocy that is making the anti-US muslim group despise us more.



So by your reasoning, Sadaam was busy fighting all the andti-US muslim groups for Bush, and doing a damn fine job of it.  Instead of Bush realizing this and heading over to personally shake Sadaam's hand, he just had a bug up his @$$ to beat him down for daddy.  Not realizing the stellar job of defending the U.S. that Sadaam was doing for us, he went in and screwed everything up, making the world a less safe place for the U.S. by REMOVING Sadaam, which in turn will bring the wrath of the groups Sadaam was so brutally fighting for us.  

Did you ever read a newspaper? Saddam was opressing the shia muslims in the south. So (or because) they hate each other. Most (anti us) terrorists are shia muslims. These two are perhaps unrelated but it doesn't take more than two braincells to see this fact.

I guess you also failed to notice that there are several hundred US deaths (of course CNN never counts other nationalities) from shi muslims attacking the US army. Why do you think they do that? Because they are so very happy?

[Crazy Cooter]

"we're forcing them to fight us there because they can't afford to let us stay.  This is far better than the alternative."

Consider this though guys:

If you were a terrorist, would you run into Iraq (where the US would kick your ass) or would you put your gun under the mattress and wait for a better "opportunity"?  Terrorism doesn't work against military personnel in the same way it does with civilians.
We need to be very careful in how we are portrayed in Iraq so the "secret" terrorists don't have a recruiting field day.  Right now we are building military bases in Iraq.  How would we feel if another country started building bases in Texas?  Resentment can be a powerful emotion.

The question I ask is: Isn't calling Iraq the battleground for the "war on terror" like calling Brazil the battleground for the "war on drugs"?  I think it's oversimplifying things a bit.  Terrorists don't come out of hiding to stand in the street and fight, it's not their method of operation.

[patrickl]

Patrickl,

Vietnam was lost because the US lost it's will to fight. People like Kerry infiltrated the US and took our resolve.  If you know anything of that war you know that we were very close to victory but we held back.  

The US didn't have a chance in hell to win that war. Apart from nuking the place. Well so maybe yor right had the not held back the nukes they would have won. Thing is, you cannot occupy a nation that rather fights to the death than to be occupied.

Vietnam isn't a good comparison to this situation at all.

If this situation in Iraq continues much longer the exact same thing will happen.

You haven't been paying attention on the ties between the terrorist groups and Iraq.  the 9/11 report said there was no direct corelation between 9/11 and Saddam.  It doesn't say there were NO ties. Al-Queada isn't the ONLY terrorist organization.

Sorry, but I did pay attention. 911 is strictly Al-Queada and Bin Laden had nothing todo with Saddam.

The "War on Terror" was on ALL terrorists.  

... and the war on Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorists.

Since you have conclusively stated that wars don't prevent terrorism, exactly what does prevent terrorism?  

Making people happy. Compare the outcome of kicking someone in the nuts and helping someone get a job.

Besides, I already said how. Solve the conflict with Israel. I might add: don't interfere with other countries internal affairs so much (it always backfires on the US anyway).