We Need a Wartime President

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: icurlamer @ 07/04/2008 7:24:14 AM

    no more WAR,that's what America needs, and she def. does not need a president that uses everything icludeing war to further their political party,i wouldnt be surprised to learn that Bush has been trying to invade Iran just so he could either run a third term or make it seem, SEEM, like mcaine is needed more becuz of war, all Bull#*%! of course........

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/04/2008 9:58:27 AM

      BULL *** MOST OF THOSE RAG HEADS THAT WERE RELEASED WENT BACK TO KILL AMERICANS ITS THE PANSIES LIKE YOU THAT MAKE THIS COUNTRY WEAK YOUR A SORRY ASS LIBERAL WHO WILL HIDE UNDER THE BED UNTIL THEY FIND YOU AND THEN GIVE UP ANYTHING TO KEEP FROM GETTING HURT SORRY ASS *** LIBERAL !!
      i hope israel bombs the snot out of iran and them iran will strike at american targrts and then we can finish the job since we're already there !!! hooo rahhh SEMPER FI !!!!

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/03/2008 4:05:13 PM

    We should go after Iran and anyone else that wishes to do us harm you people of the u.s. that think for one second that Iran wants to be friends or allies are sadly mistaken. Let me clear one thing up the people of Iran really don???t care about the u.s. other than trading they like the western apparel blue jeans etc. but the leaders of iran well that???s a different story they dispise us. They would rather see us dead than anything else! If the president of Iran had his way he would give all the countries fortunes to eliminate the United States and Israel! They believe that we are infidels and should be killed in accordance with Islamic law! You can say what you want about bush hell I have problems with some of his misgivings but two wrongs don???t make it right your very own barrack Hussein obama said that if needed we would go into Pakistan or Iran if he felt that they would harbor bin laden now bush well he has done some things that have left a bad taste in the peoples mouths and I don???t like it either but its all done now no turning back we can???t back down now nit would only lead to more attacks on our soil! So the real question is do we need a wartime president ? Well that is easy enough answered! Yes of course we do??? we need a president that will go to war anytime our country is threatened you can say what you want about Israel but they don???t take bombings or terrorist lightly they act and it has kept them from being destroyed this long with a little help from the u.s. just yesterday a terrorist got into a front end loader and drove through the streets killing people babies and all well the people of israel did what every american would do and that is stop him at all costs thay shot him dead right there and in my opinion he deserved it !! now some of you would have him pulled out and brought to trial and put him in prison well that to me is bull *** he did it they saw him doing it and thats that !

    • Posted By: icurlamer @ 07/04/2008 7:44:29 AM

      spoken like a true repub. patriot,,most of people in Gitmo, happened to be in wrong place wrong time,after 9/11 america puts bounty's out,if anyone sees anyone suspcious turn them in, and get paid, that's it .Many are terrorists,but alot arent and noone has the right to hold and torture people for years and years without any evidence of wrongdoing,,I in no way support the torture for any reason,we dont become our enenimy, for all you jerks that think America should torutre human beings,Iraq was not as huge a threat to America as you like to pretend,no alqaida in Iraq till U.S invaded,if Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan to invade Iraq,so if you think he is a great war time pres, You must not understand he sucked at it,Warmongering does not equal a good war time pres. and never forgrt the actual person ,Usama Bin Laden was resposible for9/11, not Saddam and I will vte for Obama,he is the only SANE choice

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/04/2008 9:55:41 AM

        BULL *** MOST OF THOSE RAG HEADS THAT WERE RELEASED WENT BACK TO KILL AMERICANS ITS THE PANSIES LIKE YOU THAT MAKE THIS COUNTRY WEAK YOUR A SORRY ASS LIBERAL WHO WILL HIDE UNDER THE BED UNTIL THEY FIND YOU AND THEN GIVE UP ANYTHING TO KEEP FROM GETTING HURT SORRY ASS *** LIBERAL !!

  • Posted By: GregHere @ 07/02/2008 5:29:33 PM

    ............................................Wartime President....B.S....This is a term that attempts to glorify war. What we have is an Interventionist, Imperialist Country that attempts to bully and control the world. Why can the United States be like Canada and many other Countries in the world that lifes at peace and the leadership takes care of improving the lives of its people?????

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/02/2008 9:08:03 PM

      Greg move to Canada or if you already live there then enjoy waiting in line for your doctor ehye. you freaking hoser. Canada has helped us in Afganistan and they are good neighbors but when good people do nothing Evil wins if you don't believe in Evil then the people with views very different from our own win. Their views include Killing innocent civilians, stoning adulterers to death, Hanging homosexuals, denying women the rights to go to school, if a woman is raped she can be forced to marry her attacker.

      I know we should honor other cultures and bla bla bla but get real these people will kill us if we don't stomp them out like the cockroaches they are.

      But Iraq didn't do anything they were a peace loving dictatorship that only gassed their own villagers and only invaded their neighbors once before we attacked them. Liberals are the rebellious teens of America they think they know everything and blame big bad dad for all the troubles in their meaningless lives. Well If you think running away from your problems and a little change of president is going to help you I have news for you.

      Your going to run away to the big city and under those bright lights you will find the smooth talking guy that promises to take care of you is actually a monster who will offer you a treat but then beat you up and pass you around to his friends before sending you out into the night to bring home some cash. Yea sweetie he will take care of you good.

      • Posted By: washchadblip @ 07/03/2008 12:47:01 AM

        Why aren't you in Iraq? If you believe that this war is just, then fight it. The military needs bodies. Be one of those bodies.

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 1:07:02 AM

          because someone needs to stay here or you hippies will overrun the country.

          • Posted By: ES NYC @ 07/03/2008 2:33:09 AM

            ege

            • Posted By: ES NYC @ 07/03/2008 2:47:20 AM

              If you think for one second those that you call liberals, are not aware of any 'Evil' or don't consider the Talibans or al Qaeda enemies you are only showing your own bias or lack of critical thinking.And since when are you caring about homosexuals? ...hehe just kidding! You need to understand that it is not their culture, it is a way to exercise control of the society for the control of it's resources: Opium

              • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 10:20:03 PM

                does it matter why they do it? Is it ever the right thing to hang people who are gay? I fail to see how stoning adulterers helps them with the opium trade. They are the bad guys that may be politically incorrect but the fact is we have to pick A side and I choose the American side.

          • Posted By: washchadblip @ 07/03/2008 9:21:41 AM

            You're a coward. You start wars by voting for Bush and let others fight them. Coward, coward, coward. Walk away from your keyboard and enlist and be a coward no more.

            • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 9:35:37 AM

              Coward hugh? strong words from behind your keyboard.

              • Posted By: Nins @ 07/03/2008 1:48:30 PM

                Hippies, One Poke? Your long grey hair is showing.

                • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 3:57:08 PM

                  Ah I miss my hair! lol

          • Posted By: ES NYC @ 07/03/2008 2:38:23 AM

            My Friend (you probably like to be called like this), your are definitely wrong and your post is exposing your flawed thinking and your lack of integrity.
            Canadians might have to wait longer for government provided health care, but at least they are not dying while waiting like this poor lady as seen on every TV channel and Youtube in today's America...

  • Posted By: GOP_Represent @ 07/02/2008 2:42:49 PM

    I actually intended the 'gun' to represent his facilities and the 'ammo' to be the WMD.....makes sense that way......

    Anyway, it's almsot midnight where I am, so I'm off. Good chatting with all of ya, have a good night!

    • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 07/02/2008 2:59:40 PM

      Speaking of facilities, where are those mobile labs Colin Powell referenced in his speech to the UN? Where are those links to al-Qaeda that were in northern Iraq (Under our protection via the no-fly zones put in place from Desert Storm)?

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 4:02:17 PM

        I think we blew up the labs. Im not sure what they turned out to really be but I am curious?

  • Posted By: Wired @ 07/02/2008 3:14:45 PM

    Oh no ! Bush gave up golfing ? Poor poor man, I can only feel his pain. Meanwhile, "Bob Smith" in Iraq has lost his vision,arms,legs and dignity. But Im sure Bob feels sorry for Bush.

    • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 3:42:53 PM

      So what have YOU given up? Whatever you are *wired* on might be a good place to begin.

      • Posted By: Wired @ 07/02/2008 3:56:00 PM

        I didnt start this war. And Im not the one that is forcing U.S. soldiers to be mutilated and die because Im pig headed. Im giving my vote in November and then some. Thats what Im giving up.

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 11:40:12 AM

          you did not start the war but you are contributing to losing it. You are a traitor to your country and don't deserve to live here.

          • Posted By: Nins @ 07/03/2008 2:01:47 PM

            Put a sock in it, OnePoker. Wired is not a traitor just because you disagree with him. Duh.

            Attitudes like yours were rampant among Communists and Fascists. You want to kill off anyone who doesn't hold your views. Ugly stuff.

            • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 4:01:17 PM

              ok tokyo nins. Go back and read your own propaganda. You and all the lefties are losing this war that your own son in law is fighting. Are you gonna tell your grandbaby how you fought alongside the taliban in the propaganda war while his or her daddy was off battling for his country and for the children of Iraq.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/02/2008 3:26:53 PM

      Bush gave up golf because he thought it was inappropriate for a commander and chief to be seen playing golf while a war was going on he didn't do it as a personal sacrifice meant to offset the losses of the war.

      • Posted By: trimm25 @ 07/02/2008 3:40:19 PM

        he gave up golf because of back problems, Iraq was a good political point... he was still playing golf well after the war started.

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/02/2008 5:42:42 PM

          He gave it up when he saw a clip of himself on the news playing golf and it struck him as inappropriate he didnt give it up for political points.

  • Posted By: Wired @ 07/03/2008 4:01:17 PM

    Hos is it that "liberals" always get drug into these debates? Maybe I forgot, but whats the title of Bush ? Is he a a "liberal" ? Did a "liberal" start this war ? Lie to American and the world ?

    You GOP nuts (not all) need to come up with your own vocabulary and quit vomiting everything you hear from Limbaugh and Hannity.Sad.

  • Posted By: Sheererboy @ 07/03/2008 11:51:49 AM

    The war was a waste of American lives and time and we don't need a wartime president, we need a president that can affectivly and safly get us out of the war befroe more lives are lost!!!

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/03/2008 3:58:36 PM

      We should go after Iran and anyone else that wishes to do us harm you people of the u.s. that think for one second that Iran wants to be friends or allies are sadly mistaken. Let me clear one thing up the people of Iran really don???t care about the u.s. other than trading they like the western apparel blue jeans etc. but the leaders of iran well that???s a different story they dispise us. They would rather see us dead than anything else! If the president of Iran had his way he would give all the countries fortunes to eliminate the United States and Israel! They believe that we are infidels and should be killed in accordance with Islamic law! You can say what you want about bush hell I have problems with some of his misgivings but two wrongs don???t make it right your very own barrack Hussein obama said that if needed we would go into Pakistan or Iran if he felt that they would harbor bin laden now bush well he has done some things that have left a bad taste in the peoples mouths and I don???t like it either but its all done now no turning back we can???t back down now nit would only lead to more attacks on our soil! So the real question is do we need a wartime president ? Well that is easy enough answered! Yes of course we do??? we need a president that will go to war anytime our country is threatened you can say what you want about Israel but they don???t take bombings or terrorist lightly they act and it has kept them from being destroyed this long with a little help from the u.s.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/03/2008 12:11:26 PM

      Yes and we can sit and watch the clouds go by again...Kinda like we did before september 11, 2001. Nobody would bother us...Our military will be at home sleeping soundly, extremists wouldnt plan on attacking our military barracks or our peaceful military ships out for a leisurly sail. Osama would go back to playing backgammon or his Nintendo DS and preach peace and prosperity as he has always done. And if we are attacked again we can just send happy letters for a couple of years to the UN asking the poor peaceful extremists to please leave us alone as we are sure it was a case of mistaken identity or we will us marshmallow guns as to not cause damage to there little mud huts and bingo halls...Because we now know that they wouldnt EVER even think of destroying us, no proof of nukes or bioweapons, so they would never harm us...Ahhh the sweet sunny days...Hey lets go to Mister Rogers neighborhood and see whats going on there..Wake up freak.

  • Posted By: washchadblip @ 07/02/2008 11:46:46 PM

    What we need are Bush voters to serve in Iraq. They voted for a war president. It's time for them to NOT emulate the draft dodging Governor Bush and pony up some arms, legs, eyes, and lives.

    • Posted By: Wired @ 07/03/2008 12:15:56 AM

      Haha, thats great and true. If they support the war so much then they should join the military and die for their country !

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 9:42:35 AM

        by the way the goal is to kill for your country death is viewed as an accident.

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/03/2008 1:52:20 PM

          Little too eager to go killing there, no?

          It's called "murder" outside of the context of a legitimate conflict. And it takes a lot more to call for peace in this country than war. Your bravado doesn't hide your cowardice and eagerness to take pleasure in the suffering of others.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 3:55:50 PM

            I'm not spewing bravado I am just laying out the fact that we don't send our soldiers over there with the intention of them dying we send them over there with the hopes that they can kill the enemy. Some of them of course die and we regret every American life lost along with every innocent life lost but that is the price for imposing our will on the enemy. I know you think its wrong to impose our will on anyone you would rather sing kumbaya and hope the bad guys never visit us.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/03/2008 12:44:51 PM

    Did you know McCain has had 4 different campaign managers? McCain just can't get it right. He keeps changing managers, as if it is their fault that he can not succeed. Fact is, McCain is NOT a good candidate.

    After his first run at the Presidency when he got swift boated by Bush, his manager John Weaver got McCain to play "Maverick" and cross party lines to become a NeoLiberal. McCain almost changed parties and became a Democrat and Kerry's running mate, but at the 11th hour he switched horses again and hired Terry Nelson to manage him. Nelson is a strong GOP establishmentarianist, and got McCain to throw himself behind Bush, with promises of the GOP giving him the 2008 nomination. But Nelson didn't last, because the strategy failed. The right wing was suspicious of McCain because McCain voted against abortion, for gay rights and for gun control during his "maverick" phase. They didn't know if they could trust him. Also, Nelson spent money hand over fist, nearly bankrupting McCain's campaign. So he replaced him with Rick Davis, who was at the helm for the past year. Davis is a fiscal conservative, made McCain sell that expensive big bus, and made McCain mind his manners and act polite in public. But now, Davis has been fired too. Why? Because McCain is getting desperate, and the gloves are coming off. His new manager is Steve Schmidt, a Rove disciple and former Rove employee. McCain has also hired Nicole Wallace and Greg Jenkins to head his "Communications Team." Nic and Greg are also former Rove employees, masters of the art of swift boat smear campaigns. McCain going to let the Rove bulldogs off the leash. Look out, America, this is going to get ugly.

    My prediction: the 20% of America that is made up of ignorant jingoists will be cheering to see Rove's bloody tactics. But you know what? They were all going to vote for McCain anyway. The rest of America will be so disgusted by the hatchet work of the NeoCons that they will vote AGAINST McCain.

    The "last resort" tactic of the GOP to win this election will be to bomb Iran, starting another war. Mark my words, if McCain is not doing well in September, Bush will bomb Iran. He is already setting the stage for this, by saying that Iran has nuclear weapons, even thought inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency have both found NO EVIDENCE of nuclear weapons. REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING? It's the fake "weapons of mass destruction" all over again. And did you know that on June 26, Bush, very quietly, declared a state of National Emergency? During a National Emergency the President can DECLARE WAR without waiting for the approval of Congress.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html

    It is going to be a very bumpy ride, America, so hold on, and DON'T LET BUSH AND ROVE STEAL ANOTHER ELECTION. I wouldn't mind so much if they were good for the economy, but let's face it, they destroying America. I

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 1:05:31 PM

      MCCain 08 because he is a change we can live with and a change that will benefit us all.

      • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 07/03/2008 2:07:23 PM

        thats a heart touching comment... you have some evidence for that??

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 3:51:54 PM

          I didn't think the libs needed anymore than a touchy slogan. and since I am trying to appeal to them I will save the adult conversation for more intellectual boards.

  • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 07/02/2008 3:35:45 PM

    Dear Fareed:

    Another bogus white washing of the national security threats America faces to create a phony premise that justifies electing a completely incompetent novice like your guy Obama who could not be less qualified to be commander in chief. As a result of America's relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda and their cohorts since 9/11, they are on the run. Al Qaeda's one solace is enjoying the self-destructive spectacle of of the rise of fools like you and Obama who want to drag the USA back to the pre 9/11 legalistic mentality where Al Qaeda flourished virtually unopposed until after they committed a heinous attack.

    Unlike you and Obama, Osama and his brethren recognize America's deep dependence on foreign oil and the devastating economic effects of high oil prices on the U.S. economy. Osama completely understands that high oil prices are the key to hurting all American's financially and toppling the USA economy. By contrast, you and Obama live in a fantasy world of your own invention where America's economy is not deeply dependent on Middle East oil, and Iraq can be abandoned to Al Qaeda and Iranian domination without a massive further spike in oil prices that would have devastating consequences to the USA economy.

    Contrary to the phony premise of your article. America always needs a war time President as a deterrent to our adversaries. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are perfect examples of what happens when America's adversaries see a weak President. Iranian revolutionaries overthrew the Shah and embarked on a climb to becoming the biggest geostrategic threat to the USA as a direct result of Jimmy Carter's weakness. It is no accident that the U.S hostage were released the day Reagan took office.

    Al Qeada grew into a major terrorist threat under Clinton's administration and carried out a multitude of bombings including the Cole, Khobar towers and the Kenyan/Tanzania bombings without any serious response from Clinton. Al Qaeda erroneously assumed that GWB would respond like Clinton and have paid a heavy price since 9/11. However, Al Qaeda understands that Iraq is the central front in their war with the USA because high oil prices are the one path they have to their ultimate goals. Therefore, they are eagerly awaiting an Obama administration that would underestimate them once again. Iran is also anxiously awaiting Obama as President so they can expand their domain over Iraq and ideally position themselves on the Saudi border where they could intimidate and dominate the weak Saudi/Kuwaiti regimes.

    Of course, geopolitical and economic reality are not serious considerations in Obama's blind ambition to become President and that is exactly the reason he must be defeated.


    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/03/2008 1:59:42 PM

      Al Queda has been made STRONGER by Bush's bungling in Iraq. If we had stayed in Afganistan where we belonged and fought Al Queda to the mat there, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, Bush takes troops out of Afganistan, allowing Bin Laden to get away. Then, Al Queda gets stronger in Somalia and yes, especially in IRAQ, where they took advantage of the chaos to set up shop. Al Queda was never in Iraq during Saddam's reign. It was US who let them into Iraq. It is US who weakened Iraq so much that Iran now has become stronger because we have destroyed their arch-enemy. WE are responsible for the horrible mess in the middle east. And by WE, I mean that idiot Dubya Bush and the fools who follow him even as he destroys America and runs the economy into the ground. WE, as Americans, are responsible for the horrible mistakes our leader has made, and WE can NOT elect McCain, who promises more of the same misguided foreign policy, more of the same recession and depression.

      Obama is NOT a dove. He wants to give more money to the military so we can successfully complete our mission against Al Queda in Afganistan, which is the ONLY war we should be fighting. I agree with you that Muslim extremists do represent a real threat to freedom. However, Bush has only made them stronger.

  • Posted By: leekimy @ 06/29/2008 4:42:26 AM

    most people like peace! stop war!

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/03/2008 1:57:58 PM

      Best comment on this whole situation I may have ever read.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/03/2008 12:23:15 PM

    Um Pakistan gov were going after your beloved thugs that holed up in the mosque..Its there fault for putting little girls there in danger...They could have fought like men, but chose to be cowards and run to a holy place....Most of the dead from the Iraq war is mostly from your fellow vest bombers incompetence and blowing them selves up in the middle of markets were ppl were buying dinner for there families...They are the true murderers in this...The U.S> Military makes certain to avoid as best it can civilian casualties...Its your cowardly, brainwashed, simpleton, extremist friends that take the battles to there own ppl and hide amongst them in mosques and schools in a desperate bid to get away..Blame them and your big mouthed Saddam for bringing us there, then you can blame your own government for not doing there end of the deal to get us out of Iraq...So we will be there as long as your extremist friends keep up the recruiting of idiots and blowing up the innocents.

  • Posted By: Sultan Ahmed @ 07/03/2008 12:01:12 PM

    Hell and paradize,two different places created by God.
    Someone wante to make their homeland like paradize and some of them have desire to put their own people in to burning hell.

    Here is live example,what had done by the leaders in Kenya,
    what are leaders doing in Zimbabwe,Mugabe has become blood-succer of their own people.
    having remaining long time in power he has more thirst and for this purpose has created hovoc and converted the state in to a buring hell.He is 84 but don't like to see the way to go up colourefull cermonies has become essential part of his imortal life.


    On the other hand,see the activities of the president of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,he committed a crime uforgiveable,killed minor shildern including gilrls when they were citing quraan in the Mosque.Why he did so? for power, for money.he tooi action those wanted to impose Islamic system in the country.


    In this way,
    single super power presiden,namely Bush is on the top list in this regard,No doubt,he has a tiltle of killing tens of thousand in iraq,and have a same number in Afghanistan.
    he has changed the meanings of freedom fighter and terrorists by propoganda campiagn.

    Fabricated jails were constructed on off shore Cuba,water boardings were also made with paingivening stalls for gaining confession.

    I am sure,
    all detainees of Gauntama Bay would have hanged because the court,Millitary commission would never leave alive anyone undercustody.
    they(detainees) would have already been declared directely involved in the 9/11 incident.

    It can be said ,the abovementioned presidents are rightly called ,WAR PRESIDENTS>

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/03/2008 11:57:50 AM

    Washbad...Your drivel is a fine example of how the enemy works...From inside...They can get simple minded clowns like yourself worked up about your own free country...Show you some picks of our boys in uniform injured and you start wanting to pull out and hide...YOU SUCK ..Keep your head in the dirt and inhale..Or better yet go to your comrades in arms in Afghanistan and fight against us...Im sure your then bearded ass will be on tv as a traitor and a cowardly brainwashed suicide bomber, then you will have pride in doing your fellow fanatics good...Im sure there are plenty of Americans (you not included)that would love to bear arms for the country and fight for our families future freedoms...Be it for oil or not they will stand for there country and do great in representing us....ppl like you unfortunately stick out like gangrene and need to be amputated out of society...Fortunate for you our freedoms cover your stupidity too huh?

  • Posted By: okie3 @ 06/30/2008 7:14:37 AM

    We need a peacetime president, but thanks to King George we'll be bogged down in Iraq, Iran and God know where before this iget leaves office. No single leader in the history of the world has so plundered a nation. We're now the largest debtor nation in the history of the known universe, how could a civilized society let that happen, Did we not learn from Hitler where following a madman would lead us?

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 06/30/2008 11:29:19 AM

      Okie dokey...Your universe must be really small because ..Umm... Ceasar led his nation to there demise, Hitler was just a plain crazy man, which by the by economically led his country down the tubes just for world domination, Stalin, Japan, Plenty of countries in history were in debt up to there eyeballs...Hell were we not during WW2 before the depression?. That would have been Bushs fault to right?..Painting Bush as the all time loser is just your uneducated, liberal minded opinion....God knows we would have done nothing when 9/11 happened if a Dem president were in office..Just wrote strongly worded letters to the U.N. expressing our displeasure at having been attacked then expressing our apologies for being so arrogant to put our Twin Towers so high and in the way of the poor disgruntled arabic decent (murderers)citizens way...Then we would have buried our dead and thanked our lucky stars it didnt hit the wall street building....Bush acted in the way a President is supposed to have acted...return the military favor, take out potential threats, and yes Iraqs Saddam has always been a threat...As for the economy it will always bounce up and down. With or without war....Dont recall Reagan running us through any wars but we were in a recession...Times are changing..and so are our attitudes. Keeping the country together, WORKING to make the economy stronger and not sitting around collecting state checks, yet complaining that we dont have enough is just plain ignorant..Especially to blame the president for the countries laziness is just obsured.

      • Posted By: okie3 @ 07/01/2008 8:22:33 AM

        Look dittohead, I live in the same universe you do. I'll stick by my words.

        • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/03/2008 11:44:02 AM

          Sure stick by your words, Toothless Dustbowlian..then when you come out of your little underground bunker from your version of the end o times, then you can feel stupid at how wrong you are.

  • Posted By: tcogs @ 07/02/2008 1:05:11 PM

    This is another straw-man argument, created by left leaning Newsweek to try to remove the focus from the fact that Obama has NO experience in much of anything!

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 1:13:34 PM

      And neither did Lincoln.

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 9:39:22 AM

        Vigil you know Lincoln oversaw the most casualties of any war. So maybe having an iinexperienced Leader is a bad thing.

      • Posted By: JaneMS @ 07/02/2008 1:54:39 PM

        lincoln had much more experience than Obama. He also didn't have the modern day weapons we have now.
        Iraq was also shooting at our planes in the no fly zone. they broke 13 resolutions they had signed with the UN at the end of Gulf War. He was cheating on the oil for food program.
        The el-Qaeda running from Afghanistan were going to Iraq and he was accepting them. you know their saying "an ememy of my enemy is my friend".
        ell-Qaeda and other groups like them are all over the world. Don't be naive.
        Clinton should have taken him out when he had the chance but was too busy with his Monica business.
        Obama is of the same mind. He thinks if we are attacked it should be a police action. I can just see him sending the NYPD to the middle east to try to catch them. And we did not get all the First WT center bombing jihadst. And they are not all in jail as he claims. Yep, send them to court with an ACLU attorney to a liberal judge. That will sure get rid of them.
        no wonder hamas endorsed OB.
        In Hobamas book he said he would support the palistinians against the jews if push came to shove.
        Lets wonder what he will do if Irael decides to take out Irans Nukes. They can't do it without our help.
        Other articles are wondering who should be his v.p. Well, if he is the messiah, and Wright is his mentor, then Wright can be God and be his v.p., OJ his AG and Farrakahn his Sec State. That should make all those lefty dems happy.

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 1:59:03 PM

          Increasingly I have a "no replies to posts that use creative re-spellings of politician's names for purposes of mischaracterization" policy.

          But I do want to mention that I, and a lot of other Americans, have absolutely no love for Israel's Middle Eastern policies. I personally think we've been fighting their wars for a long time, and in return not a single Israeli soldier has served as part of the coalition forces. That's just manipulative cowardice.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/02/2008 2:18:06 PM

            Israeli soldiers would inflame the populations of any of these countries if they were deployed. That was just an ignorant comment on your part.

            • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 6:03:41 PM

              And why is that? It's not necessarily because the local populations just irrationally hate Jewish people. At this point, a lot of them do, because what started the conflict has been forgotten about and only hardline fanatics are left in Palestine. But the truth of the matter is that the creation of Israel led to the forced exodus of more than half a million Palestinians, frequently into poverty and ruin. Those who remain are locked in ghettos where they are denied medicine.

              Israel has never apologized for this. And most of the surrounding Arabic countries are very angry about the expulsion of more than half a million Arabs - there is a sentiment of Arab nationalism that has been steadily emerging over the last century. So they've frequently attacked the Israelis, which has further exascerbated Israel's (probably quite justified) paranoia following the Holocaust, and caused Israel to militarize heavily in response, up to and including undeclared nuclear weaponry suitable to destroy most population centers in the region, with reach all the way to Europe.

              It's *our* support that's enabled them to do this. And while I apologize for "cowardice" - too judgemental and hasty on my part - I think this war is being fought by proxy - elsewise the use of Israeli combatants would not enrage the surrounding states to this extent. We've consistently claimed we were balancing the power in the region, but the truth is that we've rather unbalanced it, and I think the risk of geopolitical consequence including nuclear war has increased as a result.

              I do not necessarily disagree with a military alliance with Israel, but I do disagree with fighting as their proxy, and I absolutely think the issue of human rights violations *against* the Palestinians needs to be addressed, *regardless* of the Intifada.

              • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 1:24:26 AM

                We are not fighting a proxy war for the state of Israel we are fighting a war for the country of Iraq against extremists bent on terrorizing the local populations and expelling us by any means necessary. If we leave now all the people of Iraq will be under the thumb of extremist militant Islamic fascists. We want to leave it in the hands of Moderate Iraqi's that will not threaten their neighbors or their own population.

              • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 1:17:41 AM

                The only reason the Palestinians are kept locked out of Israel is because they tend to detonate themselves on busses when they are allowed in. Yes the creation of Israel right in the middle of the Palestinian area was an injustice to the Palestinians but it was done now we have to live with it. The Israelis have tried peace and it only ends in spilled Jewish blood.

      • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 1:53:12 PM

        Yeah, and look at the war THAT Republican lied us into! Though if you are going to compare Obama to Lincoln, let's reprise the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, same format, national venues, with McCain and Obama. Let's get this out of the hands of the PR hacks and "surrogates" and let the candidates face off without the media parody that passes for political debate today. They are both sitting Senators, so an even number of debates, alternating turns at lead-off, would be fair.

  • Posted By: captain_america @ 07/03/2008 6:56:43 AM

    What a biased and naive article. Your conclusion that we don't need a war-time president based on the fact that Al-Qaeda has been weakened is precariously dim-witted and naive at best. However, it's much more likely that it is dangerously arrogant. Underestimating the Al-Qaeda threat is what Bill Clinton did best and it is exactly the reason why we are having to deal with them so forcefully now. How easily we forget the lessons of history!

    This article just sounds like it was written by the Obama campain. Oh, well. It's not like it's any different from the rest of the trash the media is force-feeding America right now.

    • Posted By: washchadblip @ 07/03/2008 9:33:28 AM

      Republican Senator CHARLES HAGEL: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs." (Speaking at Catholic University, Sept. 24, 2007)

      Former Federal Reserve Chairman ALAN GREENSPAN, in his book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World: "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

      Democratic Senator JOHN TESTER: "We're still fighting a war in Iraq and people who are honest about it will admit we're there over oil." (Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2007)

      General JOHN ABIZAID: retired commander of CENTCOM: "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." (Speaking at Stanford University, Oct. 13, 2007)

      Weapons of mass destruction? Freedom on the march? To kill Osama? Blah. Blech. It's oil, oil, oil. And Bush's right hand is dripping oil and his left hand is dripping blood. Just like yours, Bush voter.

    • Posted By: washchadblip @ 07/03/2008 9:30:22 AM

      Enlist, coward. That's what the make-believe Captain America would do. So, make believe that you have a spine and enlist.

      I can see you charging the enemy line now, yelling, "Bill Clinton didn't have a spine, but I do!"

      Actually, I can't see you doing that and neither can you. We both know you're a coward. You vote for Bush, who starts oil wars and doesn't finish them and you both call that patriotism.

  • Posted By: GOP_Represent @ 07/02/2008 2:26:22 PM

    Vigil, I see what you're trying to do, but you're analogy fails. A gun in someone's house doesn't pose much of a threat, but WMD in the hands of a brutal dictator does.

    Try this analogy: Someone points a gun at a hostage, hours/days of trying to talk this guy out of it seems not to be working and you're confident he's going to kill the hostage, so you shoot the agressor. Later, you find the gun wasn't loaded"

    ^Now there's a thought experiment (sort of) for you!

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 2:38:32 PM

      ...noooooo, because in this analogy, there never actually was a gun, so to speak. Or rather, not in this particular time frame.

      Your analogy would be accurate if, say, in 2002, Saddam did a test firing of a missile capable of delivering a nuclear or chemical payload at another country (similar to the recent Israeli military exercises aimed at delivering a veiled message to Iran), then claimed he was going to fire an actual weapon, but we went in and didn't find anything. If that were the case, I would withdraw some of my criticisms...but it's not the case.

      A more prudent analogy in this case might be "this guy used to own a bunch of guns, the police came in and got rid of them, but we think he has them again, so we're going to go arrest him and confiscate his property". That would refer to the *actual* WMDs that got confiscated in the late 1990s (I really can't figure out why you guys haven't used that particular fact yet as justification), but it's worth noting that in America, if the police erroneously went in and confiscated someone's property on grounds like that, even if the person possessed weapons before, they'd be looking at a lawsuit...at least in the hypothetical case.

      In reality, as usually happens, the Blue Code of Silence would make sure it was covered up, which is another fine analogy for the entire situation.

      • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 2:48:42 PM

        Are you perchance making reference to the poison gas described in the Wikipedia article - Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction? I presume that in a gunfight you would be the mythical good guy who lets the bad guy shoot first.

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 2:56:47 PM

          I won't be mischaracterized by you. Debate on debate points and quit painting me in with stereotyping brushstrokes, or go home and admit that you can't argue without ad hominem attacks. You can look that up on Wikipedia too, if you're not familiar with the term.

          • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 3:11:28 PM

            Let me unload and rephrase the question: do you stand unequivocally opposed to pre-emption as a matter of principle? Where terrible weapons are involved, where do you stand? How do you feel about the Cuban missile crisis?

            • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 3:42:12 PM

              Yes, as a matter of fact, I do, at least as far as out-and-out war goes but as a matter of practicality, not principle. Analogous to the way withdrawal of due process almost always leads to police corruption and abuse, opening the door for preemptive warfare removes the protections we have against those in power starting wars that are a LOT more unjustified than this one at a future date.

              The Iraq war doesn't even bother me so much as the potential future wars that could be started in the dubious name of a "preemptive strike"; it's easy to fabricate claims and then go plundering for resources under the guise of defensive warfare. (I don't even think that's happened in Iraq as much as other liberals do, though the no-bid oil contracts are a bit shady.) As far as the Cuban missile crisis goes, that was resolved via diplomatic negotiations. Those I have very little problem with as a preemptive measure; as a matter of fact, I believe preemptive negotiations (not just "peacemaking", up to and including playing hardball) and indeed preemptive, RATIONAL economic sanctions are some of the better ways to head off a violent conflict.

              And if we agree to disagree on that, I'll be glad, because I do understand how others might disagree on that. But yes, in the modern world, I disagree completely with preemptive military invasion.

              Preemptive surgical strikes (for example, to remove weapons facilities) are another discussion and a more complicated one. I believe in those *only when proof has been firmly established*.

              • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 3:51:14 PM

                How can you play hardball if you have never proven that you hold a credible threat? You cannot win at poker if you ALWAYS bluff.

                • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 4:03:24 PM

                  ...

                  We have multiple thousands of MIRVed nuclear warheads. Do you think I think we would never use them? Do you honestly think I'm a big enough diplomatic idiot that I don't understand that threats of force are necessary in diplomacy sometimes? I would not *be* here if we hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most likely, as my grandfather was scheduled to invade the main islands if the Japanese hadn't surrendered.

                  But this isn't that. We didn't use diplomacy with Saddam. And I cannot even believe that you would suggest that the U.S. does not hold and pose a credible threat to any country it wants to. That's utter insanity. My point is that we seem to have forgotten that we do *hold* the diplomatic trump cards in just about every arena we enter, or we used to before the dollar started sinking like a stone. But we didn't use them.

                  I don't even see how you could assume in any circumstances that the U.S. would not be seen as holding credible threats in diplomacy.

                  • Posted By: cyodine @ 07/03/2008 9:26:37 AM

                    According to my understanding, one of the major reasons for the war with Iraq was to preserve the integrity of the UN or at least the US???s own integrity. The United States / United Nations had tried for months/years to diplomatically resolve the WMD issue, and Iraq merely spit in our collective faces for the hundredth time. The UN (a.k.a paper dragon) had been rapidly losing all credibility throughout the past decade. Its mandates, even those backed by threats of force, were routinely being ignored without repercussions. The reporter that interviewed Saddam claimed that Saddam didn???t believe the United States would even attack, presumably the result of this same pattern of UN barking. The US made a painful choice between either allowing coalition of nations to enforce UN mandates without complete UN backing or to let the UN crumble to a toothless bureaucracy scoffed at by the rest of the world. Granted, the US???s own credibility was at stake as well since the first Gulf War was predominantly fought by US forces. The UN treaty ending the war was primarily applicable to just the two major factions fighting: the US and Iraq. The US did not need UN backing to fight or end the first war; it merely sought it based on a vision of a more unified world. That vision was in danger of shattering if the UN could never enforce any of its own mandates. And if the US???s own foreign policy was seen as impotent, all hell could break loose (i.e.North Korea invading South Korea, China invading Taiwan, Iran attacking Israel, etc..).

                    I???m sure other factors played a role in the decision to go to war, though perhaps to a lesser extent than credited. First, even if Iraq did have WMD???s, terrorist acquisition of them was already a danger from rogue elements in other nations such as Pakistan, North Korea, or the former Soviet Union. Secondly, ending Saddam???s regime based only on his unpopularity with his people or even human rights violations would idiotically open up an ugly can of since a ???crusade??? to liberate the masses of the world from their oppressors sounds a lot like the aggressive Communist dogma of the Cold War..

            • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 5:28:26 PM

              One last point - the Bay of Pigs, which was *our* unilateral mistake, helped bring the situation to the brink of global thermonuclear war.

            • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 07/02/2008 3:25:08 PM

              During the Cuban Missile crises we had aerial photo's proving Russia's involvement (i.e. Actionable intelligence). In Iraq, the only thing we had was accusations, which is why the UN security counsel denied our bid for help in dealing with Iraq. But then again, the Cuban Missile crises didn't require military action to resolve, which answers the question if we need a wartime president.

              • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 3:38:30 PM

                You skipped a couple of sentences to get to your *gothcha* answer. I loved JFK, who was a war hero, and would have kicked his brother Edward's decadent ass many times over had he survived to see the travesty made of the Kennedy heritage. He risked nuclear anihilation based on the best information he had. I saw those photos also. They never made it out of their tubular crates, and could have been decoys. So what?

                • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 07/02/2008 4:01:09 PM

                  The best information he had? Photos never made it out of the crate? Please... And again, why did Russia have Missiles in Cuba? Our missiles in Turkey ring a bell? You might want to restudy your history.

                  • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 4:17:58 PM

                    The MISSILES never made it out of the crates in Cuba. I suspect you of being deliberatley obtuse.

      • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 2:54:13 PM

        As I recall, one of the proscribed weapons that WAS discovered in Iraq after the invasion was missiles reconfigured to exceed the range allowed by the UN. I recall some UAV discoveries also.

    • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 2:33:08 PM

      As long as this is an experiment, let's take the venue out of the domicile and put it into a classroom.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 2:53:56 PM

        Just as a bit of explanation so others aren't deceived by this, you're attempting to imply that the hypothetical aggressor in this case is so depraved that he/she would have no compunctions about harming children. Thereby, you stoke most people's largest and deepest fear - that someone would harm their own children. You then attempt to use this in order to justify extreme persecution and execution of your enemy, even though there's no particular evidence of children being harmed here any more than in any other public space - more akin to a park than a classroom.

        But what's actually happened is that *you're* the one who's used children to further your persecution, by dragging them (or at least the idea of them) into a hypothetical situation that has no analogue in reality (implying in this case that Saddam made threats against a population that was *entirely* children). You're abusing the very notion of innocence to provoke fear.

        And that reflects on you - not Saddam Hussein - as an abuser perfectly willing to drag an innocent into a situation in which he/she was not involved in order to provoke violence.

        • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 2:59:48 PM

          Have you not seen the photos from Najaf and Beslan? Islamic extremists use children, women, the mentally handicapped - and they treat their victims as weapons. That's what terrorism IS.

          • Posted By: trimm25 @ 07/02/2008 3:43:37 PM

            what about what happened at the Iraq prison were in charge of(sorry don't know how to spell it) couldn't someone just as easily say we were committing terrorist acts then?

            • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 4:14:08 PM

              Only if you take a definition of terrorism so far out of the mainstream that the word loses its effectiveness in discourse. I especially enjoyed the Saturday Night Live episode where Bill Clinton waxed rhapsodic about naked human pyramids. If you let the alleged victims describe torture, most high school students are tortured every time they have to do homework. (Is this your situation?)

              • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 5:30:34 PM

                It's an international convention that's defined torture in these cases, not "the victims".

                • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 8:10:51 PM

                  You seem big on due process and international convention. I presume you mean the Geneva Convention. Please explain to me how we should deal with extranational combatants - al-Quaeda - within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions. If they are effectively Pakistani or Saudi or British or Kuwaiti or California citizens dressed in mufti (interesting word), but warring against our armed forces, should they be treated as civilians or as spies and sabateurs, or a something completely different? If you can make sense enough of the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 5, to give me a conclusive answer that all parties accept, I will stand in awe.

          • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 3:53:41 PM

            You're dragging in a lot of factors that have nothing to do with the debate over principles of due process here.

            Yes, Saddam was a dictator. Yes, he brutally repressed many of his people. This does not mean that he had ANY weapons of mass destruction in 2003. All you're doing is continually harping on the point that he did bad things, he used to have weapons, so even if he didn't have them now what we did was totally justified. And I disagree.

            Since I have a life to live, I'm going to put the brakes on any more posts for today.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 2:44:08 PM

        So that you can rile up people's fears about their children and add emotional baggage to the situation that wasn't there before? That's craven in the extreme. Do *any* of you know how to argue without persecution?

        • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 3:22:34 PM

          We are not debating abstractions here - the hypothetcals serve to illustrate an unfortunate reality. Is that against the rules?

          • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 3:26:26 PM

            And I would appreciate (but do not expect) forgiveness for the occasional typo.

    • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 07/02/2008 2:41:52 PM

      We couldn't even prove he had a gun... Do some homework on UN resolution 1441 and why we were shot down by the UN security council. Turkey even restricted our air space because they knew we were full of crap. (Remember freedom fries? Of course you don't)

      Keep drinking that GOP Kool-aid which got us stuck in the first unprovoked war in American history...

  • Posted By: ThinkBeforeULeap @ 07/02/2008 11:45:29 AM

    "It is by now overwhelmingly clear that Al Qaeda and its philosophy are not the worldwide leviathan that they were once portrayed to be. Both have been losing support over the last seven years."

    I wonder why? The war CAN'T have anything to do with it. Liberals are so dense. Al Qaeda recruitment is diminishing in Islamic countries in large part because the potential recruits are beginning to realize that if they choose to fight the US it's equivalent to a death sentence... 72 virgins notwithstanding.

    Radical Islamists declared war on the US in 1979. Through the Iranian hostage crisis to the US embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first Trade Center bombing and finally the WTC collapse we've been willfully blind to the fact that we were at war. Bush is the first president to actually fight back. I think that might qualify him as a "war president."

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 12:09:03 PM

      The war in Afghanistan probably did a lot to disrupt Al-Qaeda's operations. The war in Iraq, not so much. Al-Qaeda *did not exist* in Iraq prior to our invasion, a fact admitted now by even high-ranking Army officers. It's become a banner and blanket name that those who oppose the U.S. in Iraq and other places adopt, even if they had nothing to do with the organization initially.

      And we have only the word of the Army and CIA that Al-Qaeda recruitment is truly diminishing. Just like in Iraq, where people went "things are getting better" for months at the beginning of this year before a car bomb blew up more than two hundred people and injured hundreds more, much of the organization could easily still be under our radar. After all, the State Dept. still barely has anyone who can speak decent Arabic.

      We're doing a fine job of impoverishing ourselves in Iraq as it is, which impoverishment bin Laden has always suggested was his true aim - I doubt he'd see a need to attack right now. I do not share your conviction, nor Mr. Zakaria's (though I consider him a fine journalist), that the organization has been completely blunted by our operations in the Middle East so far.

      The problem with people like you is that you all lump "Islamists" into one big category, assume they're all terrorists, and advocate war with any and all Muslims, somewhat akin to a Fourth Crusade. Someone else I spoke to on here advocated invading Iran because a group of Palestinians had cheered after 9/11 - one of the densest and stupidest things I've ever seen, as Iran and Palestine don't even share a language and are certainly far from the same country. Iraq is a bad war. It's cost us international credibility and hundreds of billions of dollars paid out to cost-plus contractors.

      • Posted By: ThinkBeforeULeap @ 07/02/2008 12:39:36 PM

        "The problem with people like you is that you all lump "Islamists" into one big category, "

        Did you miss the word "Radical" in my description?

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 1:38:19 PM

          I inferred that your support of the Iraq war implies that you see nothing wrong with attacking Muslims who are not explicitly affiliated with radical Islam, since most of the casualties there have been civilian, not terrorist. Supporting the Iraq war while simultaneously claiming that we're only attacking and killing people that need to be attacked and killed is not a coherent position.

          The Iraq war has not been about attacking jihadist Islam, and that's been my main critique of it. I apologize if I mischaracterized you with my statement, but if you really believe only in attacking radicals and jihadists, then supporting the Iraq war is not justified under that philosophy.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 1:49:40 AM

            the radicals are causing a lot of the civillian casualties in Iraq. I believe as an occupying force we need to engage with anyone that resists our rule. Many of the militias that originally fought against us have now come to our side after seeing the brutality of the Taliban up close and personal. Now these former enemies who fought our soldiers because we were the invaders now fight with us because they know we are their best hope at liberating their country. We have to be pragmatic and accept former enemies as friends once we understand where they are coming from we can then begin to work with them and we will win this war.

  • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/02/2008 12:04:50 PM

    OK first of All the terrorists launched an attack on American soil that killed over 2000 civilians that is a real war not a minding of interests. Second The terrorists have failed to strike on US soil for a second time so not only is Bush a War time president but he is a war time president with an exceptional track record of preventing a second attack on American soil.

    You can debate the merits of Iraq all day long but when enemies kill americans I expect my president to act in exactly the way George Bush acted. On 911 the average americans reaction was its time to blow some %%%% up! Bush may have overstepped his bounds but it was an error made with the intention of protecting American lives so in that I support him one hundred percent.

    FOr those apologists who say it is clear Al Qaeda isnt the big bad wolf we thought as evidenced by their lack of a second assualt I say look at the facts.

    They attacked our ships
    they attacked our barracks
    they attacked our embassies
    they attacked our center of commerce Wtc

    Then America woke up and we attacked their government
    the we attacked thier huts
    then we attacked their caves
    then we attacked their suppliers
    we cut off every angle we could find and they have been nearly neutrlaized

    dont go calling us a bully when they attacked us numerous times and don't go thinking they would of just gone away if George Bush had given a great speech.


    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 12:24:56 PM

      I'm no apologist for Al-Qaeda The problem, as I've mentioned in responses to other threads, is that you and many others don't distinguish between moderate Islamic citizens and radical Islamic terrorists, nor do you distinguish between nationalities. It's akin to saying that if Australia bombs Saudi Arabia, the Saudis would be right to attack us in retaliation because we both are English-speaking countries with a high population of Christians.

      The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi - not a single Iraqi among them. The USS Cole was bombed by Iranian terrorists. The only Iraqi involved in the terror acts you mentioned was a single man out of six conspirators with no official ties to the Iraqi government.

      So my question to you is - since fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? One of the 1993 WTC bombers was Kuwaiti; why aren't we attacking Kuwait as well? Note that I personally don't believe we should do any of these things, and I certainly don't think we should be in Iraq. I supported the operation in Afghanistan and still do, but the rest of it has been a bad, bad mistake. Al-Qaeda *did not exist* in Iraq prior to our invasion there.

      You lump everyone into a single "they" category, and spread your hate around to hundreds of thousands if not millions who don't deserve it. It's much easier to do than actually understanding the tremendous complexities of the Middle East; it's also bigoted, ugly, and unfair. It's not going to create a winning strategy there.

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/02/2008 12:56:34 PM

        VIgil I appreciate your post but I disagree with your premise that we don't distinguish between the terrorists and the citizens of islamic countries.

        The terrorists on 911 were trained by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility early on. Al Qaeda was harbored by the Government of Afganistan. We removed the Government that was symptathetic to our enemies but we did not lay waste to the entire country in fact we took great pains to provide food and supplies to as many afgans as possible.

        As for Iraq we attacked them because we had a legitimate fear that they would supply our enemies with Chemical weapons. Iraq had a history of using chemical weapons and our intelligence led us to believe that they were continuing to produce them. We also surmised that the government of Iraq was ripe for corruption and there was a legitimate danger of a rogue general selling supplies to our enemies.

        In hindsight it looks like our fears were exagerated and that Iraq had no ties with the terrorists.but at the time we had a dictator thumbing his nose at us a vast black market developing where goods and weapons and oil were flowing back and forth across the border and an opportunity to spread democracy to the middle east. Obviously we underestimated the negative reaction Iraqis would have to our invasion and we made some very arrogant mistakes like dismantling the military and not taking more input from the local power factions.

        Anyway the Government of Saudi Arabia is not hostile towards us so we don't have any reason to attack them. Some of their citizens are hostile towards us and we try and get them whenever we get a chance.

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/02/2008 1:33:12 PM

          I give you credit for very calmly responding to what I said. And I apologize for my assumption that you're lumping groups together there, I've been responding to other posts where people have most definitely been doing that, it was wrong to do and I apologize.

          I give you a *lot* of credit for admitting that our fears were exaggerated. For my part, I definitely think that whatever was done, is done, and I'm certainly not going to do the whole outraged-liberal bit that some have done where they just condemn and condemn for the next twenty years and act like it's still 2003 and we can go back and do it over. And thank you for bringing up Iraq's porous border, at least to me that's a more valid justification for action there than *anything* else that's been said about the whole episode.

          What I think is important going ahead is how to best resolve an occupation that's really causing us a lot of problems, both in terms of world opinion and financially. I don't have any good answers there. I'm not sure I think unilateral withdrawal, given our other policies in the region, is going to be the best option, but I also know we just can't afford to keep running things the way they are. Somehow we're going to have to either compromise, or else accept that unilateral withdrawal will most probably leave Iraq in a period of civil war for years that will be replaced with a regime that will indeed be overtly hostile to us, not just vaguely threatening the way Saddam was.

          It's a tough problem. I don't have all the answers there. But I'd enjoy discussing it.

          But Jesus, it's nice to talk to someone who's not just yelling and yelling, and someone on the conservative side who admits there were some mistakes made. If we had more liberals willing to move forward instead of pointing fingers, and conservatives who were willing to just talk about things calmly, I swear we could get through this whole nightmare.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/03/2008 1:44:22 AM

            Lol Vigil we are all human beings here and in the end we are looking for the same things (a peaceful existence) my side just happens to think the threat to America is too great to let linger and the other side seems to think its more important that we insure the enemy is represented by the ACLU. Let me state also that as much as I would love to punch some of these liberals that post on here sometimes I also would die defending them and their families if it came down to it. I don't believe they are idiots I believe they are misguided just as many of them believe I am misguided so we hash out our arguments and scream yell and call eachother all kinds of stuff but in the end I consider people who express their opinions and whom I can tell my true opinions too friends even if we don't always agree.

            The Left is passionately trying to save American Lives I can respect that. The right is Passionately trying to protect freedom and also has a long term view of saving American lives I hope they can see that in us.

      • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/02/2008 12:53:32 PM

        We included Iraqs Saddam BECAUSE he was so stupid into thinking he could saber rattle at a time of war with the Taliban that he wrongly thought that his little cronies would help him if we did attack....WRONG!! Let another foolish dictator run his mouth during a time of Americas time of war and see where it lands him..

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/02/2008 3:06:36 PM

          You forget that North Korea also started rattling sabres during that time, but did we attack them? NO.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse