[Number 5]

Originally Posted by PC1

Understand that European countries, while allies, aren't going to act in our best interest. The US is THE global superpower. The U.N. and Europe want nothing more badly to level the playing field, to take our resources and our superiority away from us.

this is ridiculous. the average european guy just wants a steady job and a wife with big tits to ****. the average politician just wants to be reelected. i don't see who exactly in this system is hoping to take anything from the US?

on the contrary, if US economy does well it's good for Europe. If US suffers a recession it'll carry over to Europe. Thus it's in Europe's interest to have US as a strong trading partner. As for the militray power, I think the NATO countries are pretty damn happy US has it, they just don't like how Bush used it in Iraq for financial gain (oil) and personal reasons (vendetta against saddam b/c of bush senior) - and maybe some other bullshit reasons.

now did saddam have WMD? this is not obvious to me since the 80's bio stuff had expired long ago and most of the other stuff had either been used on the kurds or confiscated by the UN during the first years of inspections. basically he had WMD only if he had secretly been stockpiling them, but why would he do that? he had nothing to gain from it (clearly he was in no position to launch any attacks) and he had everything to lose? the guy was a sadistic bastard, but he wasn't cracy, so why would he stockpile. to boot, his planes and missles had been bombed to **** so he didn't even have anything to launch potential WMD's with.

terrorism? saddam was no friend of bin laden or other terrorists - this was fairly clear all along - and what could he possibly have gained by supporting terrorists? nothing, but he could have lost a lot (think of afganistan).

personally i think US should have rolled into iraq during the initial gulf war, split into 3 ethnic countries, placed some semi-democratic dictorships in power (the arabs were behind the US at that time too - they could have taken over), secured the good oil deals and then gotten the **** out of there.

-5

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by PC1

The governments of both Israel and Germany had intelligence that also supported this view, we were not alone in that assessment. There's no arguing that point, whether or not every country within Europe had the balls to act on it.

Israel may have had motive to encourage the US, but why Germany? even if their intelligence indicated that Saddam had WMD's why would they have made it available to the US given that they were against the war? if you have some evidence for this then i'd love to see it. also, if it was clear to everyone that Saddam had WMD's then why did Colin Powell need to embarrass himself with a laughable presentation to the UN.

as i understand most european countries did think it was likely that Saddam had WMD's, but there were dissenting voices within their intelligence agencies, which were not ignored, so most of the countries just weren't sure what saddam had or didn't have in the end. however, it was clear that saddam was in no position to threaten the US so Bush's stated reasons for going to war were perceived as phony in Europe.

now let's think logically for a second, the Bush administration is under fire for having lied to the American people about the WMD's, so if his prewar intelligence was so damn good, then why doesn't he just make it public so everyone could say "yeah, i can see why he thought Saddam had WMD's"?

-5

[PC1]

Originally Posted by Number 5

.......... the average european guy just wants a steady job and a wife with big tits to ****. the average politician just wants to be reelected. i don't see who exactly in this system is hoping to take anything from the US?

The first half of this statement is an admirable and worthwhile goal, although you skepped the part about wanting her to have a nice tight firm ass as well ........ the second half is just naive.

Originally Posted by Number 5

................As for the militray power, I think the NATO countries are pretty damn happy US has it, they just don't like how Bush used it in Iraq for financial gain (oil) and personal reasons (vendetta against saddam b/c of bush senior) - and maybe some other bullshit reasons.

With due respect bro, if you want to engage me in this discussion, respond to the substance of what I've already said. If you go back a page or so, I've already debunked that the conflict is about oil. If oil was the primary motivator, Kuwait would be the 51st State in our union. Iraq, in spite of the ongoing resistance, would be 52. American flags would be flying everywhere in both countries now, and we'd have 4x the number of troops on the ground in Iraq; and we sure as hell wouldn't publicly be making statements about how we're going to cede control back to them by July of this year.

I'm not naive enough to think that oil isn't part of the equation. Oil alone is not the reason for the war, it's a tertiary consideration.

It was Janet Reno of the Clinton administration was publicly quoted as saying that since the fall of the Soviet Union, radical fundamentalist Islamists pose the greatest threat to America and it's interests. I don't have many good things to say about the Clinton administration but clearly Janet Reno hit the nail on the head on this one.

It's better to fight the war on terrorism THERE than here in the U.S. Assuming we end up with a military base or 3 in Iraq, it's infinitely superior to "asking permission" of our "good" friends the Saudis to either fly over their air space or launch operations from Riyadh.

Originally Posted by Number 5

......now did saddam have WMD? this is not obvious to me since the 80's bio stuff had expired long ago and most of the other stuff had either been used on the kurds or confiscated by the UN during the first years of inspections. basically he had WMD only if he had secretly been stockpiling them, but why would he do that? he had nothing to gain from it (clearly he was in no position to launch any attacks) and he had everything to lose? the guy was a sadistic bastard, but he wasn't cracy, so why would he stockpile. to boot, his planes and missles had been bombed to **** so he didn't even have anything to launch potential WMD's with......

Well, since we've been there, we've found fighter jets and other weapons burried under the sand in various places. Is it possible there's more that we haven't found? Is that probable or improbable?

Personally, I don't care if in the final analysis Saddam had them or he didn't as of the time of the invasion. He'd already shown his true colors. It would only be a matter of time before he redeveloped them again and became even more of a menace. He might not have had a nuclear threat but he did have a development program. That inarguably was his goal. We have the guy who is in charge of the program?! C''mon! Would you prefer we WAITED until he had a few before going in?! Maybe some would prefer we continue the shell game with weapons inspectors. PC maybe, but bullshit in my mind.

Originally Posted by Number 5

terrorism? saddam was no friend of bin laden or other terrorists - this was fairly clear all along - and what could he possibly have gained by supporting terrorists? nothing, but he could have lost a lot (think of afganistan).

Again, you're ignoring what I've already posted on this. Saddam paid money to the surviving family members of Hamas and the al Aqsa martyrs brigade, to the tune of, I believe, $12,500 per suicide, after their young sons strapped explosive belts unto themselves, walked into areas populated with civilian Jewish men, women, and children, and vaporized themselves and as many others in the vicinity as they could. What did Saddam "gain" from that? You tell me, because aside from perpetuating bitter hatred, it makes no sense. Still, the payments have been documented. And again, the ongoing investigation has shown that (1) Training camps for al Qaeda were established in Iraq, and (2) at least one official of Saddam's regime that I can recall from memory has been shown to have met with al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Which is not to say Iraq had a hand in 9/11, but is to say that some connection existed. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Number 5

.............personally i think US should have rolled into iraq during the initial gulf war, split into 3 ethnic countries, placed some semi-democratic dictorships in power (the arabs were behind the US at that time too - they could have taken over), secured the good oil deals and then gotten the **** out of there.

-5

Well here we agree 100% bro. In hindsight, I don't think anyone can argue that's what we SHOULD have done. But if you'll recall at the time of Dessert Storm (the first operation), after we blew through Iraq pretty easily, there was a goundswell of public opinion at least here in the U.S., to NOT roll through Baghdad and take out Saddam.......yeah, big mistake. The stated goal at the outset, was to liberate Kuwait, and not change the regime. And we were too damned concerned with pollitical correctness and didn't want to be accused after the fact, of engineering a regime change in the guise of liberating Kuwait. What bullshit.

Which brings me to my final point on this exchange.........

Recent news accounts have indicated both Israel AND Germany had intelligence indicating Saddam likely had WMD. If you follow news accounts here in the US, our news media is fairly liberal and left leaning, and they really don't like Bush. So this tells me that the accounts are probably reasonably accurate.

Which is not to say said intelligence was true and accurate.

But it doesn't matter one way or another, at least not to me.

The U.S. has the right to go anywhere in the world to defend it's interests and those of our allies, period. I don't give a damn if the U.N. and every other country in the world think that we're wrong in our actions.

We have the best intelligence, and the greatest military in the history of the world. All one has to do is turn on their television to see just how damned insane life is in the middle east. France, and all the arab countries combined can be screaming and tearing their robes at the "audacity" and "arrogance" of the US/Bush about what we're doing over there........ tough **** I say.

I have great confidence in Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al. If Bill Clinton wasn't so bogged down in trying to defend himself from impeachment proceedings over his disgraceful conduct in office and perjury, we could have been addressing this situation when we should have: At the time of the embassy and Cole bombings.

I would greatly prefer to not have any man or woman from any country, EVER have to fight a war. I wish and pray that in this day and age, we could reach agreements with all nations and people to live peacefully and prosperously; and enjoy one another's cultural and religious differences. Unfortunately that's not how the world is. The world is full of Saddams, Khadaffy's, Milosovich's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's, etc.

If Spain, France and Europe generally are just going to lay down in appeasement, again, well don't get pissed off at us for going in to take care of business. The truth is, and everyone knows this already, the world will be a better place after the U.S. finishes kicking ass in the middle east. I pray we have the resolve to finish the God-forsaken job.

Freedom isn't free.

May God bless all the men and women who are in harm's way.

[PC1]

Originally Posted by jweave23

................ I supported the War on Terrorism and certain post 9/11 actions (sans the Patriot Act). But if anyone can truly think that the war in Iraq has much to do with the war on terror, they are full of ****.

Read what I've already posted bro........

Better to establish positions in Iraq and fight the war THERE, than to be fighting it here.

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by PC1

I have no problem with this "agenda" whatsoever. I'm surprised that you would?

I have no shame in stating I'm a firm believer in "America First". Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the single greatest threat to the security and well being of America comes from fanatical militant Islamists. I've already indicated that Iraq was a convenient starting point in the military campaign against them because of Sadam's horrible track record in the area of human rights. Why should we fight this battle here in the U.S.? We shouldn't of course. That's why we're over there.

I find it disturbing that Rumsfeld has a list of 50 countries who sponsor terrorism against us, NOT because it's the fault of Rumsfeld! C'mon ! It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. One can argue all day about all the freedom of choice we have here in this country. By comparison, the inhabitants of most countries in the middle east are backwards and primitive. They hate us. And they want the resources that we have. Some of them are willing to blow themselves up just to kill 10, 15, or even just 2 of us. Is this because of Rumsfeld and Bush? Let's be serious here.

The killing will stop when either they smarten up and stop trying to kill us, or when we've killed all of them.

Once again, it would be great to send a diplomatic team over there and make a truce. We would be willing to do that. They would not. This is the fault of Rumsfeld or their religious and cultural perversion?

I'm a firm believer in America first as well. I have always stood up for this country but when the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of this war started because the neoconservatives manipulated and took advantage of an inexperienced president I have a problem with it.

Iraq does serve as a great strategic point in launching future military attacks. Killing 30000+ Iraqi civilians is not the way to go about it. The amount of munitions we dropped on that country were severly unnecessary. Now Lockheed and Ratheon have many restocking orders to fill and many dollars to be made by said companies above. Some of these same companies are contracted to rebuild Iraq. Sounds a little too convenient to me. There will always be people that hate the US. Should we nuke the rest of the world and send the world into a Nuclear holocaust to stop it, or should we deal with the actual people who are doing the killing?

One of those countries on Rumsfeld's list is as I'm sure you know is N. Korea. This little piss ant country doesn't even have the capability to launch a nuclear strike against us, nor have they shown any hostile actions toward us. I guarantee you that if our nuclear weapons research continues the way it is the informartion needed for them to be able to will become available to N. Korea and many other countries. The gov't is currently paying 5 universities to work on the nuclear weapons program. In this day and age of the computer world the information being given and exchanged to these universities will too easily fall into the wrong hands.

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by PC1

bin Laden is many things but stupid is not among them. His father was an engineer, and in his preparations for this war he has been smart enough to apparently develop elaborate tunnels and escape routes in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The answer to this question is very simple. Our conventional weapons probably will not penetrate deep and well fortified cave complexes. If we knew where bin Laden was at a given moment and we had the option of sending in American troops to kill him and would risk even the life of only 1 American..... OR

We could launch 1 nuclear missile and take out the whole lot of them without sending in troops, which would you opt for?

I would hope you would opt for the second option, as it's really no choice whatsoever. These cretins aren't worth spilling the blood of any Americans.

And in terms of why we should have nukes in the first place, I personally don't care what it takes for us to maintain our superiority over the rest of the world. We are the superpower. We are the freedom loving constitutional republic who democratically elects leaders. We try to plant the same seeds in other countries, to give them a model that WORKS, so they can elect their own representatives. We don't colonize other countries. We are unique, freedom loving people. Most of the rest of the world is not. They want what we have, not vice versa. And yeah, I make no bones about the need for us to maintain military, pollitical and financial superiority over all other countries across the globe. NOT for the purpose of conquering other countries on a whim, but to maintain and preserve our way of life. We CANNOT be a nation that kow-tows to the U.N., or any other country or organization. We must always do what we believe to be right with respect to our interests and the interests of our allies, the U.N. and any other 3rd world pygmy country be damned.

This is a response I would expect to hear from someone that doesn't know or understand our current nuclear capabilities and future capabilities. We currently have over 7000 nuclear weapons. Half of those are ready to be launched within minutes. Roughly 100 nuclear weapons would be enough to send the planet into a nuclear winter. We have enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on this planet 30 times over. We are currently doing underground testing, which breaks nuclear treaties. We are currently developing new facilities to perform nuclear tests and building supercomputers to take 3D video of nuclear explosions. These computers are costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is no need to develop more powerful weapons when we have the capability to destroy the whole planet. By breaking these nuclear treaties we will surely send the world into another nuclear arms race. I'm not even going to mention the tons of plutonium that are scattered across this country infecting our rivers and lakes. The gov't is killing us and you don't even see it.

You say our conventional weapons will probably not penetrate into these caves. This is true. So you suggest that we use a nuclear bunker buster to penetrate these caves. A bunker buster will penetrate roughly 15 feet before it triggers it's nuclear explosion. If our standard nuclear weapons exploded on the ground can make a 200 foot crater don't you think that will increase the chances of killing everyone? Why are we developing these multi million dollar weapons when we have the capabilities far beyond any other country has?

We spend half of our budget on defense. I'm all for having a superior military. I am far from being weak on defense, but when we are spending more than every other developed or developing country combined I have a problem with it.

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by PC1

This is what I really have a problem with. I don't care if someone holds different viewpoints than my own, that's what this country is all about. What I do have a problem with is the NONSENSE that Bush has lied to the American people. Please.

There are several things Bush has done and not done that have bothered me about his presidency. I won't go into them here. But lying, scandal, coverups, all that crap, is nothing but democrat election year bullshit.

Consider first, that he is a man of deep religious conviction. Who do you get your news from, Richard Clarke? Is it the Richard Clarke who during 2/02 indicated there was no specific plan handed down from the Clinton administration to deal with al Qaeda, and who indicated the Bush administration laid out a 7 point plan to deal with global terrorism, including a 5 fold increase in funding to the CIA? Or the Richard Clarke who just last week was running his mouth saying the Bush administration didn't make terrorism as high a priority as the Clinton administration? The Clarke who said only 2 days ago on Hardball that, in response to whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented, said the answer wasn't so "fascile" (french for "simple") or the Clarke who during the same 9/11 inquiry stated rather emphatically, "No" it couldn't have been prevented?

With respect to Haliburton and other companies that Bush and Cheney held substantial equity investments in: You need to remember that BOTH of them prior to taking office submitted personal financial statements to a senate oversight committee (the name escapes me right now) seeking advice on whether or not they should hold, sell, or sell a portion of their investments. THEY FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATION. So please, don't be listening to democrat bullshit about how these guys are somehow lining their own pockets by executing pollitical policy favorable to this industry or that one. Because that's also a bunch of crap.

These guys already have wealth. They're not in pollitics for the money. Most polliticians are in it for the power. Different ego trip altogether.

I get my news from the facts, not from the liberals not from the conservatives. I am far from a liberal, so labeling me as one to discredit my points is irrelevant. I don't comform to any particular party. Most politicians are in it for the power? Well what better way to show your power than blowing a country back to the stone age, invading it, and stealing their resources?

[jweave23]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/03/powell.iraq/index.html

[michaelton]

Originally Posted by NPursuit

I get my news from the facts, not from the liberals not from the conservatives. I am far from a liberal, so labeling me as one to discredit my points is irrelevant. I don't comform to any particular party. Most politicians are in it for the power? Well what better way to show your power than blowing a country back to the stone age, invading it, and stealing their resources?

Blowing a country back to the stone age? The routed regime did more damage to Iraq (there is no need to list the atrocities here, they are well known) than the United States, and the difference is huge. There is no comparison in the history of warfare.

Yes we invaded it. And if any other nations want to remain in the state sponsorship of terrorism business, we will do well to end them as well.

Stealing their resources? Please. The United States hasn't stolen a damn thing. We are rebuilding that raped and neglected nation. If we wanted the goddamned oil we had the whole kit in place in 1991; end Iraq and then swallow Saudi Arabia .

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by michaelton

Blowing a country back to the stone age? The routed regime did more damage to Iraq (there is no need to list the atrocities here, they are well known) than the United States, and the difference is huge. There is no comparison in the history of warfare.

Yes we invaded it. And if any other nations want to remain in the state sponsorship of terrorism business, we will do well to end them as well.

Stealing their resources? Please. The United States hasn't stolen a damn thing. We are rebuilding that raped and neglected nation. If we wanted the goddamned oil we had the whole kit in place in 1991; end Iraq and then swallow Saudi Arabia .

I really could care less about what happened in Iraq. Just because we can fly to Iraq doesn't mean we should be obligated to save it. There are too many problems in this country that need to be dealt with. Come back to me in 30 years when your social security is gone and you can't afford health care.

Just because the resources aren't being stolen right out in the open doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is no point in trying to change your mind on these issues because you have already shown to have a closed mind, and it's unfortunate that people will believe the first things they hear and seek to find facts to back them up no matter how much evidence is against them. I understand though many people have been blinded.

[michaelton]

I agree with you that we are not obligated to save any nation. However, an unprovoked attack on our nation's political and cultural capitals that left 3,000 people dead was enough to change this country's approach to terrorism and the nations that sponsor and harbor them. To suggest that the Iraq war was waged because it was good for business or politically is absurd.

I agree that there are problems in this country. They are separate from the issues of terrorism and the intersection of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. What are we supposed to do? Wait until a mushroom cloud is rising form one of our cities?

Social Security is doomed already. I will never get a nickel from it, and anyone my age or younger who thinks they have a "Lock Box" waiting for them is a damned fool. The system was set up to take money from workers and transfer it to retirees. In 1940, the year the first social security check was cut, there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3.2 to one, and by 2020 there will be 2.2 to one. According to Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University, the present value of the gap between promised outlays and projected revenues is $51 trillion -- more than four times the nation's annual GDP. Again by way of comparison, the household wealth of Americans -- the value of their houses, 401(k)s, SUVs, porn stashes, everything-- is about $42 trillion.

How any young person can look at the deduction for social security on their paycheck and think they can't do better investing for their own retirement is beyond me.

Health care? We could discuss that too, but I doubt anyone wants to. I don't.

Closed mind? You don't know me. You could counter the points I made with facts or argument, but you chose not to. Instead you just wrote me off as closed minded. Of course, how else could anyone have a contrarian view? You objected to the liberal tag two posts ago, why is it now relevant to do the same thing?

I didn't post to try to change anyone's mind. I just disagree, and I also believe that these are the crucial issues of the age. All people should educate their damn selves, and those who would lead this nation should do more than ***** about how wrong the other side is. I also think those who would lead this nation should take A SIDE instead of trying to be on both sides of everything.

NPursuit, its all good bro. I appreciate your service as a mod as well as your thoughtful posts. I respect the difference in our viewpoints, and if history proves me to be in the wrong on this or any other issue, I'll admit it.

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by michaelton

NPursuit, its all good bro. I appreciate your service as a mod as well as your thoughtful posts. I respect the difference in our viewpoints, and if history proves me to be in the wrong on this or any other issue, I'll admit it.

I apologize if my post came off offensively. I just see things differently now and don't like what I see. It's all good though.

[michaelton]

Peace, dudesky.

[PC1]

Originally Posted by jweave23

......And I feel that many have been brainwashed by FOX News and the right Republican party. Do you directly transcribe Rush Limbaugh fused with Hannity overtones?? (A simple rib, nothing personal) .........

Yo Weave!

Truth is, I haven't listened to so much as 30 minutes of Rush Limbaugh cumulatively in my life. Ditto for Sean Hannity. I'm well aware of who they are though, and truth is I've listened to plenty of other conservatives. So who you or I listen to is irrelevant.

People who are liberal hear other liberals voice an opinion and that resonates within them. They hear conservatives voice their opinion and that produces dissonance. The converse is true for conservatives.

Sen. John Kerry recently made the statement that the US is polarized because the president (Bush) is polarizing it. Well that's just plain horseshit. It has ALWAYS been this way since the beginning of politics.

Rarely will a conservative change the mind of a liberal, and vice versa. The battle then is for public opinion among the middle 1/3 and the residual "undecideds". Over time, the pendulum swings the liberal way, though never far enough for the far left, people get sick of that, the pendulum swings to the right but never far enough for the far right, and back and forth it goes.

Quote: