[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan]offiss, sorry to say but you are wasting your time. I agree with you 100% and I can't understand for the life of me how these other Americans can think so different then I do. But, our Country has been all the better with up until now with MANY opinions.

peace a God bless this great Nation.
mike[/QUOTE]


Agreed, it does get tiresome trying to convince people step's are being taken for thier own good, you have to many people out there gladly drinking the kool aid, oh well, I said it before and I'll say it again, you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

Wasn't the serin gas in tiny dosses within a University used for University purposes? Or was that the tiny bit of serin gas found on a farm that they used for something on the farm. Either way it was far from enough to do any sort of real damage.

[quote] watching as 3000 people die because someone just doesn't like us[/quote] Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument?

Clinton may have said he thought Saddam could be a threat, but he sure as hell didn't reach out and attack him on falacies did he? I'd also like to see a quote where Clinton calls Saddam "A Threat to America." Thanks.

bergman (is that his name?) ran off with them ;) but seriously, i do believe he said that, but i do blame clinton for treating the military poorly and he passivity when american targets were attacked... not that that has anything to do with iraq.

[quote]Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument?[/quote]

probably, but since they don't vote... </cynicism>

I was trying to avoid chiming in on this political debate, but I might as well now. So allow me to take a minute of your time with a lengthy diatribe. Then hopefully we can get back to discussing the Redskins

The one thing that always strikes me about protests against the U.S. that occur in the U.S. is that, in a backhanded way, they are the greatest compliment to the country. It was a bit hard under Saddam to gather en masse in Baghdad and protest against the government there. Well, you could, but it would be your last protest for sure. So, if we have these frustrations in our gut over "war," "injustice," "inequality," "children," "famine," "poverty," and "weapons of mass destruction" etc., we can only direct them at democratic governments b/c we would be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed if we direct them only at the totalitarian ones. Strangely then, we begin to direct them only at the democratic ones, as if they are the problem. Some blame the U.S. and Britain for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the demise of the United Nations, and the impoverished condition of the people of Iraq. It may be tempting to make the seemingly reasonable suggestion that "everyone" should disarm. But the deterrent effect of military power aside, the credibility of the disarmament depends directly on the transparency of the government. For that reason, I firmly believe that, yes, democratic governments have more of a "right" to possess nuclear weapons and even WMD than non-democratic ones. I didn't have a problem when, for example, India detonated nuclear weapons in 1998. On 12/13/01, there were armed gunmen about to storm into the capitol building in Delhi and open fire on a hall full of ministers leaving session. And although that attack was traced back across the border, India did not, and has not, taken military action. I don't believe history can show a war between two democratic nations. Totalitarian regimes, however, don't have any such mechanisms of restraint against the use of such weapons for aggressive purposes.

Regarding the United Nations, its recent actions have been the highlight of its history, not its demise. The idea of the UN, after all, was that it be relevant. But for the entire decade of the '90s it was a joke, completely turning a blind eye to the flouting of its resolutions. Somehow the presumptions have been turned upside down here. Let's remember that 1. Iraq invaded another country and then 2. the UN issued resolutions ordering Iraq to disarm as a condition for the cessation of military conflict because of what it had done. That's the starting point. The world doesn't have to "prove" Iraq has WMD; that's been decided already. Rather, Iraq is the one that had to prove that it no longer does. So what was wrong with seeking to enforce that? With respect to the people of Iraq, whether or not foreign revenues flow in is irrelevant if there is a domestic power structure that monopolizes those revenues. That is not the world community's fault; that's the fault of Iraq's leadership under Saddam. The question of whether the world community is to blame depends on how it responds to this situation. All the guilt-cleansing painful anguish about whether this should be the decade of dialogue and understanding is nonsense if, when it comes down to it, the world does not stand up for true human rights when the going gets tough. It is tempting to take the position of "let the inspectors continue to do their work" because it evokes a feeling that we are "doing something," but does so without really doing anything difficult. There had already been a decade of hide and seek with the inspectors. Enough.

In 1987, it became fashionable to talk about the "decline of America." In fact, there was a book that came out that year that said that the U.S. downfall would be caused by "imperial overstretch." The book was way wrong at the time as only two years later the Wall came down, the USSR vanished, and was ushered in a decade of democracy and free markets, the ultimate tribute to U.S. power and U.S. ideals. But that era ended in September 2001. Instead, it is now that the U.S. finds itself in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Korea, in Indonesia, all over the board. The problem with the projection of American power is that many believe it is always done only in economic self-interest, particularly now because we have the "Oil" President. And in the 1950's and '60s, it is true that the U.S. played a hand in toppling governments in order to install "our SOBs." That history, traditional imperialism, taints all discussions of U.S. use of force today. Another problem is that, unfortunately, many Americans believe foreign affairs began on 9/11/01 because few in the U.S. had cared about anything international since 1991. So yes, we forget that the U.S. snubbed Kyoto and the ABM Agreement (and even reneged on its agreement with N. Korea, which has contributed to the crisis there today). There was this back of the hand disdain for any order imposed by anyone but ourselves. Sort of like the kid in the cafeteria that thinks he can butt in line anywhere he wants and even swipe a piece of bread off someone else's tray if he wants too. Then everything changed. So we have this amnesia and in that amnesia we believe that the sun was shining, the birds were chirping, the kids were playing and then, all of a sudden, one fine day, "we were attacked." Unprovoked, unjustified, as if there had been no history then. And because of that we operate under this philosophy of "good vs. evil." We brainwash ourelves with our own notion of "moral clarity," and in doing so don't actually think that there could be another way of looking at things. And that's all wrong. Because the U.S. can't behave irresponsibly like that. That's not the way a superpower behaves. Like a dad, a superpower has to understand that what it does is just, if not more, important than what it says. If dad respects mom, then big brother will respect little brother and so forth. Dad doesn't need to prove he's dad; everyone else in the family gets along. And the U.S. still has some growing up to do in that department.

But that brings me to the unavoidable conclusion which is that, like it or not, the U.S. IS the superpower of today's world. That is a fact. And because it can, it does project its power and its interest around the world. That being said, however, today's U.S. is a relatively benign superpower. It does not have traditional imperialistic territorial ambitions. It does certainly pursue its economic self-interest, but it's more profound than that. The U.S. has the lowest trade barriers and is the dispenser of the most foreign aid, neither of which are in its immediate and direct economic self-interest. If all the U.S. wanted out of the Middle East was "oil," it could just as well cozy up to a leader like Hussein. After all, wouldn't it be simpler certainty to invest in the one man at the switch of the spigot rather than to risk it to millions? And the U.S. is made up immigrants from all over the world, a diversity that slowly, but surely, is swaying its policies. It is the most representative country that there is. But the U.S. does bother with these things. It bothers with defending free elections and open markets until tearing down the Iron Curtain. And it bothers with defending against genocide by a despot currently on trial in a docket in the Hague.

In 2000, the U.S. had a humorous and even embarrassing episode whereby it couldn't pick its own President. But for the month that that went on, the country functioned normally and when it was decided by a court that the new guy was going to take over, the assistant to the old guy, who lost, went on TV to ask that everyone support him. Not a drop of blood was shed. In 2001, out of the clear blue sky, two airplanes took down two of our tallest buildings and 3,000 civilians with them. Not to mention an airplane that was taken down in Pennsylvania by passengers who plunged themselves to their own deaths when they realized the plane was trying to go to Washington. That same day, Congress assembled in the open air on the Capitol steps to sing a patriotic song. The next day, I walked through the night of the downtown past armed soldiers, many of whom wished me a good evening and none of whom told me -- or forced me -- to go home. Only in America. As naive as this sounds, I really do believe all this "freedom" stuff. And I think the world has been and is better for it.

Bipartisan laughs:
[url]http://www.jibjab.com/[/url]

(did someone post this already? I've lost track)

ok...I can't take it anymore,

Hey SBF,
Not to start anything but "dewd" means Dedicated Electronic Warfare Display (look it up)....I think you mean "dude." If we are all trying to represent educated people in discussions such as this one...let's at least use a spell checker.

thanks smoot for an insightful essay ;) I'm not sure i'm 100% up on the UN, after seeing France and Russia decide not to help (which is fine, but then) finding out days later they'd been buying oil from Iraq and selling them military gear regardless of the sanctions... and then hear representatives from those countries complain that the UN should be able to control US policy...

I think jibjab has been posted, its pretty funny though and worth seeing again :)

[QUOTE=NY_Skinsfan]ok...I can't take it anymore,

Hey SBF,
Not to start anything but "dewd" means Dedicated Electronic Warfare Display (look it up)....I think you mean "dude." If we are all trying to represent educated people in discussions such as this one...let's at least use a spell checker.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the personal attack but I'll spell "dude" the way I want.

Have a great day dewd.

peace
mike

[QUOTE=offiss]Agreed, it does get tiresome trying to convince people step's are being taken for thier own good, you have to many people out there gladly drinking the kool aid, oh well, I said it before and I'll say it again, you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think.[/QUOTE]

blindly listening to 'the leader' in spite the fact he's clearly been PROVEN WRONG, is way more akin to drinking poisonous kool-aid without thinking.

what knowledge has Bush led us to?

[QUOTE=Daseal] I'd also like to see a quote where Clinton calls Saddam "A Threat to America." Thanks.[/QUOTE]

No, I didn't find one saying exactly that, but I didn't look that hard or long either.

First, let's hear a word from our good friend Homer J. Simpson. :D

"Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done." - Homer Simpson

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike: (when he struck)
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. ...

[QUOTE=offiss]Well that is incorrect of coarse, they have found sarin gas,which is a WOMD, which Sadam said he didn't have, he also continually denied weopons inspector's access to monitor whether or not he was trying to develope WOMD, as demanded by the U.N. resolution, after the first gulf war, that alone is cause enough to go in and take him out of power, end of story! The fact is, the reason he denied inspector's access is because he was up to no good, which also allowed him time to move any technology that he had out of the country, or bury it, I also ask what WOMD did Bin Laden have? None! Yet he was able to do tremendous damage, and now all I here is liberal after liberal coming out of the wood work, trying to say Bush, who had been in office 8 month's, didn't do enough to prevent it, so now he's doing what he has to do to keep us safe in the future, and all the liberal's say is, why are we going after poor old Sadam and the rest of his regime? Hypocrites! Case and point, both John Kerry, and Bill Clinton, have stated that so long as Sadam is in power America is not safe, they have both stated that Sadam has weopon's of mass destruction, I didn't here any demilib's crying about the great stain maker when he started dropping bomb's on Sadam when Monika's dress was being tested for his DNA, all of a sudden, Sadam was a threat, and soon as the dress incident cooled down, Sadam was no longer a threat, hmmmmm, I have to assume that if Kerry believes as he has stated that Sadam has, or had WOMD, that he would have done something about it, to [in his mind] keep us safe, then I also have to assume that no democrate could vote for him in good conscience, reason? 1, he would have gone after Sadam because of his belief of the danger of WOMD in Sadam's hand's, and of coarse there are none. Or they are there, or wore, and he refuses to do what's neccesary to keep American's safe, by taking Sadam out, and doing what is neccasary to prevent another 9/11 or worse, I am not worried about our children's, children's financial burden right now, I would rather make sure thier parent's are alive to make sure that they are born, how many children wont make it into this world because of 9/11? I bet right now they wouldn't mind having to work, and help pay for this war so they can live, and live in a free country at that.

America Bullies? That's the biggest crock yet! we are not the ones who surpress thier own country men, like half the countries in the world, follow the party line or be jailed, or killed, refusing to allow people to have an opinion other than what the govering authority will allow you, why don't you take a long hard look at how many of his own people Sadam killed, with yes, weopon's of mass destruction! I guess we have our nerve after being attacked on our soil, and watching as 3000 people die because someone just doesn't like us, to now take the initiative to make as sure as possible that doesn't happen again, and if it does, may God forbid! We will be sure to hear how it was all Bush's fault, that he didn't do enough!

If there is any chance that all info on WOMD is wrong, then to bad, it's nobody's fault but Sadam's, he's the one who refused the U.N. resolution, which lead to having to rely on possible speculation, Sadam bare's the responsibility all by himself! Why after 9/11 people would not rejoice at the downfall and removal of this butcher of a leader, is beyond me. :([/QUOTE]
Shouldn't Bin Laden have been our main target from day one? That's what I have a problem with. Saddam is no saint and needed to be dealt with eventually but the person who was behind the whole 911 operation is still out there at large and is still very much a threat to the US, yet I don't see the US going after him with the same fervor we went after Saddam with.

It just makes one question our governments true intentions.

guys, why talk about two administrations ago?
really guys, don't turn this into a dem vs. repub. thing.
then its really just sticking with your affliations and that
will never come to consensus.

this 'nest wacking' started about this coming election which
is obviously much more relevant and something we can actually
do something about.

we're not voting against a president who lied about a b***job, we're voting on a president who, incompetently (and quite dismissively) misjudged and mishandled a country as an international threat. thousands of lives have been affected and still are at stake here.

Can you see why I named this thread "Wacking the Bees Nest"?

lol
They're swarming!!!!!

Have a great day folks
peace

[QUOTE=illdefined]guys, why talk about two administrations ago?
really guys, don't turn this into a dem vs. repub. thing.
then its really just sticking with your affliations and that
will never come to consensus.

this 'nest wacking' started about this coming election which
is obviously much more relevant and something we can actually
do something about.

we're not voting against a president who lied about a b***job, we're voting on a president who, incompetently (and quite dismissively) misjudged and mishandled a country as an international threat. thousands of lives have been affected and still are at stake here.[/QUOTE]

what cpayne was showing was that there has been a solid belief based on numerous intelligence reports that saddam had been a growing threat going back to the clinton administration but yet that administration didn't act on its intel. It's kinda funny that u want to bash the current president, who's a republican, for possibly mishandling a very real threat, but yet you want to overlook the facts that the past administration, who was democratic, for talking the talk, but not doing anything about it.

I do agree that bin laden should have been the main target from day one, but just because we aren't hearing about it every day in the news, like the stuff in iraq, doesn't mean that there aren't groups of troops and special ops units hunting him in afgan.

Past administrations dropped the ball as well, but what can we do about it now?? Nothing. But we can do something about the current setup.

C'mon now, we're clearly not going after Bin Laden like we went into Iraq, let's not kid ourselves. We have more cops in NYC then the # of troops we sent in to Afganistan.

If we truly wanted him we would find him.

[QUOTE=skinsfanthru&thru]what cpayne was showing was that there has been a solid belief based on numerous intelligence reports that saddam had been a growing threat going back to the clinton administration but yet that administration didn't act on its intel. It's kinda funny that u want to bash the current president, who's a republican, for possibly mishandling a very real threat, but yet you want to overlook the facts that the past administration, who was democratic, for talking the talk, but not doing anything about it.[/QUOTE]

well ok, but, um, uh, do something about what? one truck of university Sarin gas? i thought this whole Iraq business did was prove how bad our intelligence is over there and that Saddam was no immediate threat at all. and thats why we're getting a new bi-partisan intelligence director.

heh, at the risk of sounding partisan, maybe Bill didn't have an agenda in Iraq (financial...personal), and didn't think the little intelligence they had was worth a full on unilateral invasion? :pi_lightb

or maybe bill was a pacifist who refused to do anything serious about any of the attacks on american targets that happened while he was in office :P

clinton launched some missiles that set iraq back about 3 hours, got the spotlight off of him, and then forgot about it.

and saddam had plenty of time to send the good stuff to iran or bury it in the sand (good luck finding that)... but it is strange that you'd argue bush sucks cause he wanted saddam out, but not clinton or kerry or hillary, who (at the time) also thought he was worth going after...

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Shouldn't Bin Laden have been our main target from day one? That's what I have a problem with. Saddam is no saint and needed to be dealt with eventually but the person who was behind the whole 911 operation is still out there at large and is still very much a threat to the US, yet I don't see the US going after him with the same fervor we went after Saddam with.

It just makes one question our governments true intentions.[/QUOTE]

I here ya, But let's face it we have him on the run, the objective is to stop another 9/11, and you have to figure that there will alway's be someone else looking to step up and take Bin Laden's place, times are changing.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Wasn't the serin gas in tiny dosses within a University used for University purposes? Or was that the tiny bit of serin gas found on a farm that they used for something on the farm. Either way it was far from enough to do any sort of real damage.

Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument?

Clinton may have said he thought Saddam could be a threat, but he sure as hell didn't reach out and attack him on falacies did he? I'd also like to see a quote where Clinton calls Saddam "A Threat to America." Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding?????? What on earth do you think he was bombing him for???????????????????????? :doh:

I think it's really funny!! I just sent it to a few friends!!

I think offiss is right about bin laden being marginalized to the point where he's sick, tired and too busy running to worry about planning more attacks. Not that his isn't still capable or won't try again in the future, but holding court with known terror operatives is counter productive to staying hidden.

[QUOTE=That Guy]or maybe bill was a pacifist who refused to do anything serious about any of the attacks on american targets that happened while he was in office :P

clinton launched some missiles that set iraq back about 3 hours, got the spotlight off of him, and then forgot about it.

and saddam had plenty of time to send the good stuff to iran or bury it in the sand (good luck finding that)... but it is strange that you'd argue bush sucks cause he wanted saddam out, but not clinton or kerry or hillary, who (at the time) also thought he was worth going after...[/QUOTE]

great, now you got me talking about clinton. well enlighten me then, how did Saddam threaten us back then (besides clown talk, like his clown info minister)? since when are iran and iraq close buddies? here, hold my WMD. no one's watching. yeah everyone wanted him out, but the situation was NOWHERE near the threat Bush STILL insists it was. you guys dont want to listen to documented evidence, you just want to listen to what this one guy says!

i'm not listening to bush, sorry to disappoint ;), clinton bombed him, clinton called him a threat many times, but if you're going to put him on a pedestal, i'll challenge it, because, at least in this instance, I don't think its at all justified.

Iran and iraq are not close buddies, but saddam shipped fighters over to iran in the first gulf war, and it wouldn't be surprising if he sent shipments again... he could have paid them, but it'd probably be more of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iran is not a close ally of the US as you may have guessed, and wouldn't really need much reason to accept such donations.

scroll up a bit and read all those nice quotes, kerry, hillary, clinton, gore... they all thought he was a serious threat, so continuing to say that only bush thought that way is in blatant disregard of the facts.

[QUOTE=That Guy]i'm not listening to bush, sorry to disappoint ;), clinton bombed him, clinton called him a threat many times, but if you're going to put him on a pedestal, i'll challenge it, because, at least in this instance, I don't think its at all justified.[/QUOTE]

yeah i'm not going to argue about clinton, i dont doubt for a fact he said those things, but if he (or anyone else besides bush) decided it was a REAL imminent threat, they would've made sure first, and NOT dismiss our allies and gone it alone.

[QUOTE=That Guy] so continuing to say that only bush thought that way is in blatant disregard of the facts.[/QUOTE]

wow. did you really say that? BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD OF FACTS!

regardless of what whoever believed, [B]this[/B] is the only administration who had a big enough [B]agenda[/B] with iraq to OVERLOOK the need for REAL evidence, risk billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our relationship with our allies around the world. dont disregard THIS fact.

I don't remember Clinton seeking approval from allies or the UN when he bombed Kosovo and Bosnia. And I don't remember him seeking permission when he bombed Iraq because of unsubstantiated rumors of an assassination attempt on former President Bush. But this isn't meant to be some anti-Clinton post, because I think he was right in intervening. He might have said it best when he said in 1998 that "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."

And now, it's like offiss says, the point is to avoid another 9/11. I still can't fully grasp many of the same people who complain that we weren't proactive enough in terms of Bin Laden argue that we should have just taken a wait and see approach with Hussein because he had never actually invaded our soil.

[QUOTE]wow. did you really say that? BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD OF FACTS!

regardless of what whoever believed, this is the only administration who had a big enough agenda with iraq to OVERLOOK the need for REAL evidence, risk billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our relationship with our allies around the world. dont disregard THIS fact.[/QUOTE]
no, that's not what i said at all... please read before firing off reactionary remarks... i said that [b]thinking that bush was alone in his thoughts of an iraqee threat is wrong, as in NOT TRUE. [/b]please don't try to pull that kind of crap.

as far as the being the only one to decide on acting in a major way, that's true, and [b]i have never said otherwise.[/b]

again, before shooting shit at me, please read what you're responding to, thanks.

[QUOTE=smootsmack]But this isn't meant to be some anti-Clinton post, because I think he was right in intervening. He might have said it best when he said in 1998 that "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."

And now, it's like offiss says, the point is to avoid another 9/11. I still can't fully grasp many of the same people who complain that we weren't proactive enough in terms of Bin Laden argue that we should have just taken a wait and see approach with Hussein because he had never actually invaded our soil.[/QUOTE]

sigh. awfully circular huh? iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. nothing. why do you guys insist it does? there was nothing bubbling, no real evidence of ANY plans (unlike with bin laden). al-qaeda isnt a nation, thats what makes them dangerous. if iraq as a nation attacked us, the entire world would come down on them along with us. if we had stuck only to afghanistan, the world would come down on al-qaeda and afghanistan because there was PROOF there was a relation. none of that exists for iraq. N O N E.

[QUOTE=That Guy]no, that's not what i said at all... please read before firing off reactionary remarks... i said that [b]thinking that bush was alone in his thoughts of an iraqee threat is wrong, as in NOT TRUE. [/b]please don't try to pull that kind of crap.[/QUOTE]


sorry, if i was unclear. 'BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD TO FACTS' was MY retort to you claiming we disregarded clinton and others thinking saddam was dangerous. i just couldnt believe you used that phrase, because thats [B]exactly[/B] what bush did. he blatantly disregarded the FACTS.


[QUOTE=That Guy]as far as the being the only one to decide on acting in a major way, that's true, and [b]i have never said otherwise.[/b][/QUOTE]


yup, and then he ACTED on that disregard for the truth. thats the difference. cant believe you're comfortable with that.

problem with afghanistan is that a lot of people slipped across into a fairly lawless portion of pakistan that don't really have permission to go in to... but i agree that iraq is completely seperate, its pretty the first instance of a pre-emptive war... whether you feel it was morally justified is a different subject altogether.

[QUOTE] yup, and then he ACTED on that disregard for the truth. thats the difference. cant believe you're comfortable with that.[/QUOTE]
who said i was? you? man, please stop thinking for me...

and if you think he blatantly disregarded facts, you realize that nearly all of congress agreed that iraq was a threat, they maybe didn't have the facts, cause our intel isn't used to dealing with arab threats and we don't have the networks like we did with the soviets..

its nice that hindsight is 20/20, now to work on that foresight...

you insinuated that bush was acting alone, and then when it was brought up that people supported his position, you ignored it... all i've been saying, is many many people thought he was dangerous... that's it... i don't where this other crap came from.

another quick side note is that, saddam had been found guilty of possessing WMD, and it was up to him to prove they were gone. whether you think we should have gone to war is seperate from whether he was thought of as a threat. but, since you obviously do think it was wrong, just remember, bush was not in any way alone is deciding to invade, kerry was there with him, among many others. If you disagree with the decision, the blame belongs to much more than bush alone.

well man its gotten pretty chaotic. but i dont think anyone ever argued that Bush sucks because he thought Saddam was dangerous. he sucks because he didnt bother to see that he wasn't dangerous ENOUGH (not even a fraction of how dangerous osama is) to brazenly commit our lives, our money and our friends to this war. he IS the commander and chief, and the public, the congress and the soldiers SHOULD be able to trust him.

[QUOTE=That Guy]and saddam had plenty of time to send the good stuff to iran or bury it in the sand (good luck finding that)... but it is strange that you'd argue bush sucks cause he wanted saddam out, but not clinton or kerry or hillary, who (at the time) also thought he was worth going after...[/QUOTE]

My first post was just saying that many other people thought he was a threat and he's not the only culprit in the invasion, thats all, but i guess my intentions were misunderstood.

as far as personal opinions, I don't usually get into those unless asked, cause its pretty pointless. I really don't care what anyone believes, I just rather opinions not be based on flawed reasoning.

[QUOTE=illdefined]well man its gotten pretty chaotic. but i dont think anyone ever argued that Bush sucks because he thought Saddam was dangerous. he sucks because he didnt bother to see that he wasn't dangerous ENOUGH (not even a fraction of how dangerous osama is) to brazenly commit our lives, our money and our friends to this war. he IS the commander and chief, and the public, the congress and the soldiers SHOULD be able to trust him.[/QUOTE]


And Bin Laden wasen't a danger before 9/11, infact if you made the accusation before 9/11, that Bin Laden was more dangerous then Sadam, you would be laughed out of the conversation, the fact is, Sadam has killed and tortured more people, than Bin Laden could ever dream of doing, Sadam also showed the world, that he had no problem using WOMD on Iran, as well as his own people, this is a dictator that will stop at nothing to obtain more power, regardless of the mean's in which to obtain that goal, Sadam has far greater resourses than Bin Laden, who ever want's to believe this man was not a real threat to all american's, not just dem's, or rep., I am not going to convince you other wise, 9/11 didn't just kill many innocent people, it ushered in a hole new era in this world, and it has to be dealt with, unfortuntly it is being dealt with in a different manner than we have in the past, and I don't believe many people can accept it, so be it, I for one am glad that our President has seen fit to take all this critisism, and still do what is right to keep us safe, and I mean all of us, it allow's us to have these discussion's, and voice our belief's, regardless of what they may be, voting is no longer about economic philosphical differences, it can be a vote for your life, especially those of us who live in or around new york, as well as D.C. Would I like a perfect president? Absolutly! But we all no he doesn't exist, I do think President Bush has done a pretty good job considering the circumstances. peace out!

al-qaeda bombed the WTC already once before. and the uss cole. intelligence knew of the plans to use planes against us before 9/11 as well. bin laden's al-qaeda had already attacked US. not iran, not his own people. US.

saddam neither had the means (WMD) the history (prior attacks) nor the intent (plans) to attack the US, although im sure he hated us. he had already been dealt with.

Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Rahmin (I think that was his name) were the "masterminds" behind the 1993 WTC bombing. Both were definitely given sanctuary in Iraq after the bombings and Yousef at least was reportedly an Iraqi intelligence agent.

[QUOTE=illdefined]al-qaeda bombed the WTC already once before. and the uss cole. intelligence knew of the plans to use planes against us before 9/11 as well. bin laden's al-qaeda had already attacked US. not iran, not his own people. US.

saddam neither had the means (WMD) the history (prior attacks) nor the intent (plans) to attack the US, although im sure he hated us. he had already been dealt with.[/QUOTE]

what about the reports that came from russian intel that saddam had begun making plans for attacks on US civilians and troops both in the US and internationally shortly after 9-11?
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040618_1258.html[/url]
and that saddam in the monthes right before we invaded iraq and forced saddam's regime out of power, Saddam had been in negotiations with North Korea not only for missiles, but the rights to North Korea's entire production line.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/middleeast/01MISS.html?ex=1090728000&en=bae1da5488e8487f&ei=5070[/url]

has Bush been perfect in his tenure thus far? no, but he's done a pretty good job given the circumstances of what has happened to our country over the last 4 years. and I'd rather keep a person in office I know isn't going to wilt under pressure both internally and from the masses.

those ar old links, the russian intelligence was later proven wrong. as was our own. Bush wont even take accountability for our shoddy intelligence nor acting based on it.

korea is a real threat, waving missiles in our faces and our enemies. if Bush is so 'tough' and 'decisive' why isn't this a bigger issue? probably because not all conflicts are solved by invading. and iraq wasn't even a conflict.