Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

[CheapyD]

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=10&u=/nm/campaign_bush_dc

[Rodimus]

It's a little to late to say that I would think.

[Thunderscope]

LOL, Yeah Right!

[MrBadExample]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

[CheapyD]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

[Aryss]

I wanted to be a helicopter pilot when I was little. It didn't happen.

We should have a contest on who can put the best caption of what he is thinking in that picture.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

[MrBadExample]

I wanted to be a helicopter pilot when I was little. It didn't happen.

We should have a contest on who can put the best caption of what he is thinking in that picture.

You're assuming that he IS thinking.

[Tromack]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

[Rodimus]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

touche

[Aryss]

I wanted to be a helicopter pilot when I was little. It didn't happen.

We should have a contest on who can put the best caption of what he is thinking in that picture.

You're assuming that he IS thinking.

:lol:

[dennis_t]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

BUMP!

I suppose what really disgusts me about his current tactic is that just months ago he was defending himself on Meet The Press by saying, "I'm a war president." What changed over those few months, except the fact that more people are catching onto his crap?

[Dok Diamond]

I want to be a dentist

[Rodimus]

I suppose what really disgusts me about his current tactic is that just months ago he was defending himself on Meet The Press by saying, "I'm a war president." What changed over those few months, except the fact that more people are catching onto his crap?

I'm shocked people haven't caught on yet. Kinda like the blind leading the blind.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Tromack, you're as educated on military and historical matters as I am on quantum physics.

[Gregory Kimball]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war. But, I don't think we're being critical of that Bush war. The second one was a bit more of a downright stupid decision, and is a bit harder to link with a "peace president."

Dubya Caption - "Got to concentrate... Country under attack... Huh? The third little piggy said WHAT?"

^I can't remember exactly what book he was reading, but I imagine there are lots of third little piggies spread across the literary world.

[ingotheranchhand]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

[Tromack]

Tromack, you're as educated on military and historical matters as I am on quantum physics.

Tell me what are your credentials. I'd really like to hear this.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war.

Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

[MrBadExample]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

So why exactly are you reading this?

[Aryss]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

Wow, what a complete tool to assume that gamers are not educated or politcally aware. You don't know the people here nor anything about their level of involvement. You should really go back to the basement.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

[Rodimus]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

So why exactly are you reading this?

I think it's someone who signed up to CheapassGamer just so they could say how stupid they think we are. I mean look only 2 posts.

But I guess he's right, people that play video games don't have a right to an opinion.

[MrBadExample]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Delta (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

Really no offense intended here, but just because you work for a company doesn't mean you know how to run it.

And I commend you on your service.

[DCriminal]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

Speak for yourself. I consider myself to be very well educated on our political system, as well as the contemporary issues that our country is facing.

Oh and I am doing plenty about it. I just relocated to a swing state, I give money to candidates that I support on the local and national level, and I vote regularly. :) I have found that some people actually give a "rats ass" about what I think because of those reasons.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

MBE, I did run the company. From 94-96 I helped train nearly 80% of the armored units in this country. I was in the top 5% of the graduating class of my section from the war college. You don't get to be an instructor at the NTC because you're a step above potato peeler.

[Tromack]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Delta (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

Yes.

How does being in the army make you an expert on:
a) politics
b) the intelligence community
c) history

From what I can tell, you know how to accept orders and shoot things. I thank you for protecting our country, but you have no greater knowledge of any of this than I do.

[WildWop]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Delta (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

So then you're qualified to lecture us on political policy and the functioning of our intelligence agencies? Great to see that you served our country, but honestly that has nothing to do with the fact that we disagree with how Bush is running things.

War strategy != Political agenda

Obviously we are good at the war aspect of what has gone on. The actual conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq were quick and efficient. Bluntly put, we kicked some ass. However, politics came into play after the main conflict, and promptly failed to meet the needs of the situation. The Bush administration failed the people of Afghanistan by prematurely pulling out much of our presence there, and shifting focus to Iraq. They have failed the men and women stationed over in Iraq by not dealing with the issues plaguing the country in an efficient and competent manner.

[MrBadExample]

I wasn't saying you didn't know how to do your job. I'm sure you did. I'm saying fighting a war and deciding to go to war are two different disciplines and knowing how to do one does not mean you automatically know how to do the other.

EDIT: for grammar

[dennis_t]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

As has been said before, thank you for your service to our country. I have nothing but respect for the people who put their lives on the line for us.

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

[PawnTakesKing]

Can't we all just get along?

Seriously, I mean hasn't this political debate crap gone on long enough? Everytime I look at CAG I see floods of political topics on the boards from people who just won't drop the issue. Let's all just vote in November for whoever we're gonna vote for and talk about video games like good boys and girls, ok? :D

EDIT: for grammar

[gomer1andonly]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

Seriously, do you think any of us Cheapassgamers, let alone the head Cheapass himself who originally posted this, give a rats ass what a person who's posted twice since he's joined thinks about this thread.

I seriously doubt that you really understand any of us enough to make a fair assumption that we have nothing to contribute to such discussions as these.

Quit trying to tell others who have been here alot longer and have much to offer to a discussion about issues such as these that they don't understand anything about them.

Thank you and please, get a life.

[dennis_t]

Can't we all just get along?

Seriously, I mean hasn't this political debate crap gone on long enough? Everytime I look at CAG I see floods of political topics on the boards from people who just won't drop the issue. Let's all just vote in November for whoever we're gonna vote for and talk about video games like good boys and girls, ok? :D

EDIT: for grammar

I think it's great that we can discuss issues of import along with how to get $4.99 CC games. If you don't like the political discussion, don't click on the thread.

[MrBadExample]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

Do they teach diplomacy and when you should not go to war in war college?

[Rodimus]

Can't we all just get along?

Seriously, I mean hasn't this political debate crap gone on long enough? Everytime I look at CAG I see floods of political topics on the boards from people who just won't drop the issue. Let's all just vote in November for whoever we're gonna vote for and talk about video games like good boys and girls, ok? :D

EDIT: for grammar

I guess nothing exciting is going on in the video game world.

Ya know they sould make a SIM President of the US. The we could play games and be political!

[ingotheranchhand]

Agreed. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu know more about war and politics than us. This bloody site is about games and how to get them cheap. Just realize that almost no one is going to change their minds about politics becuase they read something on a message board.
Quit preaching to the choir, ignorant hipocrits or people who could care less and realize that you are not always right and even if you are their is a point that the topic should be droped.



Stupid People Disclaimer
(correct-spelling is not perfect in the above post. Nor did I attempt to be gramaticlly correct. This is a message board.)

[MaxBiaggi3]

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

Your arrogance and overconfidence will take you far in life. I'd love to see your reaction in November if your juvenile posturing on behalf of this failed administration doesn't see W & Company return to office.

[magilacudy]

Plus, I'm sure the military would teach you an objective, unbiased version of politics in general.

[ZForce915]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

Hey Pittsburgh, what are you waiting for...a medal? You constantly run your mouth attacking other people on this thread like you're a goddamn genuis. If you are so smart and so educated then what the hell are you doing agruing on the internet?

Oh, and don't think I'm not greatful for your service. I am. But when you serve us and then demand respect, you lose mine.

[Rodimus]

Agreed. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu know more about war and politics than us. This bloody site is about games and how to get them cheap. Just realize that almost no one is going to change their minds about politics becuase they read something on a message board.
Quit preaching to the choir, ignorant hipocrits or people who could care less and realize that you are not always right and even if you are their is a point that the topic should be droped.



Stupid People Disclaimer
(correct-spelling is not perfect in the above post. Nor did I attempt to be gramaticlly correct. This is a message board.)

Dude get ready for whole bunch of bashing cause you're about to get it.

[MrBadExample]

Agreed. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu know more about war and politics than us. This bloody site is about games and how to get them cheap. Just realize that almost no one is going to change their minds about politics becuase they read something on a message board.
Quit preaching to the choir, ignorant hipocrits or people who could care less and realize that you are not always right and even if you are their is a point that the topic should be droped.



Stupid People Disclaimer
(correct-spelling is not perfect in the above post. Nor did I attempt to be gramaticlly correct. This is a message board.)

*because
*hypocrites
*there
*dropped
*grammatically

-no charge

[Lootr2Core]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

Another post where you state that (basically) everyone else on this board are more ignorant/stupid/ than you because they post on a msg board, why do you waste your time typing your opinion? If everyone followed your example noone should listen to anyone one here.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.

Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.

The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

[Lootr2Core]

a p.s. I like reading other people's point of view, and taking their opinion into account as I constantly investigate opinions. Call me strange but I actually believe in the concept of DEBATE--which in not the constant arguing of a statement without thinking about any other statements it is

a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

think about carefully; weigh

[Lootr2Core]

[quote]T

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

.


And another example of your type of 'debate' "you have no idea" ah yes, you have all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have the 'right' view.

[MrBadExample]

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

Had these troops you talked to come back from Iraq?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Of course Lootr2Core takes "you have no idea" as a slam on debating style when he is able to accurately contrast U.S. Army troop morale under Clinton versus under Bush. Go ahead, I'm all ears. Tell me how you think morale in the armed forces compares from 1996 to today.

EDIT: MBE in answer to your question, about a third have. Some are butter bars straight from the class of 2004 at West Point that are all gung ho and ready to spit nails. That's typical of young officers in time of war... and all Marines (I kid, I kid if you're a jarhead.).

I would say the troops I came across from Iraq were as well off as any combat troops I've seen. The heaviest casualties have been suffered by the Marines where some units have had 60% causalty rates. That doesn't mean fatalities. Causalty rates include dead and wounded. For example if John Kerry gets one in the leg on a Swift boat with a crew of 5? That unit has a 20% casualty rate.

The worst morale situations have been with the reserves. That's typically the units and gripes you hear about having low morale in the press. Units that have people that don't want to re-up. These are mostly people who signed up for free college money and never had any idea they'd actually be forced into service. They expected the reserves to be a big boy's Scounting group. Unfortunately I don't deal with any reserve units so I can't attest to their morale.

Hope that helps.[/b]

[dennis_t]

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.

Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.

The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

A couple of points:

(1) I notice that you never responded to the point regarding Bush's cuts to military medical benefits. Given that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are creating more casualties, don't you think this was the worst possible time to make those cuts?

(2) RE: the flak jackets. The military had months upon months to prepare for the Iraq war, and would have had even longer had Bush given the weapons inspectors the chance to learn there were no WMDs in Iraq. So I don't buy your argument that it comes down to a requisition issue.

Also, are you saying that our troops don't deserve flak jackets because they won't protect them in every single instance? I'm sorry, but if folks like yourself are going to put their lives on the line, I want them to have every single advantage. Rationalize all you want, but flak jackets and armored Humvees provide an advantage that our soldiers in Iraq did not enjoy.

[mcwilliams132]

peace through victory..

[Rodimus]

I think some people got to much war on the brain.

[dennis_t]

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.

Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.

The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

One more thing: Do you think troops sent into a fire fight deserve to have raises, or to have those raises "slowed"? I would think you'd want to pay them as much as possible, to keep them happy in intolerable circumstances.

[mcwilliams132]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

[magilacudy]

Yeah, I agree with mcwilliams on that. There's nothing he could've done in that 7 minutes or so that would've made a difference.

[jmcc]

Hey, PAafterD, I just read up a little on Clausewitz. Can the idea of war as a political tool apply anymore outside of dicatorial/oligarchal governments? It seems to me that if it's to work like he says you have to be able to force a pure concensus on making war from your populace, an ability that we don't have and will never have in America (not to mention that I don't think we'd ever allow anything other than a limited war anymore.)

[dennis_t]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.

In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.

If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.

The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.

[Lootr2Core]

Of course Lootr2Core takes "you have no idea" as a slam on debating style when he is able to accurately contrast U.S. Army troop morale under Clinton versus under Bush. Go ahead, I'm all ears. Tell me how you think morale in the armed forces compares from 1996 to today.

I don't believe I am in a place to make a comparision as 1) in 1996 we were not at war, 2) I have not not been overseas during a deployment, 3) the number of people that I have talked to are limited.

In 92-94 I was going to college in North Dakota where there is a large air force base, I worked with several airman (single guys who often took on a small part time job) and their morale seemed very good, well to be honest I never asked 'how is morale?' but they never complained about the state of affairs or the like. My sister in law is in the Navy, (not currently deployed in any hostile waters) and she says the people she hangs with (I have asked her "whats the mood of your friends) don't really say the mood is great, or bad (so ambivilant or content would have to describe it.

I have had many conversations with returning Guardsman (North Dakota has the hightest per capita I believe) the majority that I have visited with are very proud to be serving overseas in Iraq. They have a good sense that they have been paid to train for a purpose for many years and they see their deployment as a way to 'pay back' what was invested in them. While they are very proud of being deployed, I have heard a greater amount of questioning as to whether it was worth it, or whether the 12-18 months that they spent over there accomplished much.

Well thats how I think morale compares now with then, does that answer your question?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Minot AFB right? Don't they have a lot of BUFF's (Big ugly fat shaq'fuers or B-52's.) up there? The one thing about North Dakota if the Cold War had ever gone nuclear your state would have been glowing for decades. Have they shut down the MX missile fields up there?

[Tromack]

Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.

In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.

If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.

The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.

I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor

I also feel that North Korea is a very real problem. Again, I'm not against war. I'm also in favor of supporting our military. The problem I have is needlessly starting a war.

[Mookyjooky]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

http://home.ntelos.net/~mookyjooky/get_the_fuck_out.jpg

[dennis_t]

Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.

In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.

If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.

The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.

Thanks for explaining the distinction in combat vs. stateside pay. I'll have to say that in wartime I'd rather ALL of our troops get good pay, but I'm glad that the guys on the front are getting the combat bonus w/o taxes.

Re: the level of insurgency, as far as I know the State Department predicted months before the war that troops would encounter a high and continuing level of resistance, and their research was rejected and ignored by the Bush Administration. Now it seems that research was correct, but I don't see any mea culpas or resignations from the people who pooh-poohed that information.

[ingotheranchhand]

Question...

If you saw an old lady getting robbed/rapped/murdered across the street and had the means and the know-how to stop the perpetrators so that they wouldn't do this again in the future, what would you do?

The Iraqi people were that old lady and the thugs (Saddaum and his merry-men) are gone now. The thugs cannot harrass and kill innocent people anymore. They do not have the opportunity to develop/use WMD in the future.

War has its costs. Unfortonatly the good guys many times pay a high or higher price. But that doesn't change the fact that the good guys were right. What we did in Irag was the right thing to do, even if the right thing isn't always pretty or politiclly correct. Our troops gave their lives to save other. It seems to me that many Americans are selfish in wanting us to stand by and watch the world get torn to bits without even TRYING to do something about it, just so that "our boys" don't get hurt.

Sure the leaders of North Korea and Iran need to be taken out. But you have to start somewhere. We started in Afganistan and then went to Iraq. I sure hope that something is done about North Korea and Iran in the future. The person we elect as president will, more than likely, ultimatley decide if we do that.

With that, I feel like have said enough and more than likely will not post on this thread again. Good luck sorting out your political discussion.

[Quackzilla]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

In afganistan, home of the Taliban, civilian targets were flagged as "primary objectives" and all convoys were considered targets of opportunity, even if they had red crosses and crescents painted on top of the vehicles.

Iraq did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Again civilian targets were flagged to raise the Iraqi casualty count, which the media never questioned.

Neither did Iran, but Bush is trying to start something with them as we speak. He is trying to START A WAR WITH IRAN.

[Lootr2Core]

Minot AFB right? Don't they have a lot of BUFF's (Big ugly fat shaq'fuers or B-52's.) up there? The one thing about North Dakota if the Cold War had ever gone nuclear your state would have been glowing for decades. Have they shut down the MX missile fields up there?

Grand Forks actually. Minot still has the b-52s GFAFB has kc-111 refuelling wing. ALl the missles are gone now, the last 4 years they demolished them, they are just starting to clean up. There have been these rubble piles years, something in a treaty that had to 'prove' that they were not in use for russian sats to see.

I think at one time if ND seceeded from the union it would have been the 3rd most nuclear armed power in the world.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor

A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.

Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.

If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.

B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.

The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.

If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.

[/quote]

[Lootr2Core]

A good link that I read frequently and use the many links within the site is
http://www.intel-dump.com/

It is pretty thought provoking, balanced, and just generally intesting. He writes many articles on the the 'smaller' stories of the military. It is worth checking out.

[int80h]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.

I win.

[Tromack]

I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor

A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.

Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.

If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.

B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.

The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.

If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.

[/quote]

Well, I still disagree with you on the first point.
And on the second. Yes, the U.S. is the dominant power in the Middle East, but we cannot remain that way for too much longer, let alone indefinitely.

[Lootr2Core]

(an example from intel-dump related a bit to the morale issue.. talks about how in the long run even IF morale is down now...the armed forces will be stronger in the future.)

Bloodied, but better
U.S. Army emerges more combat ready from the crucible of combat in Iraq

The Washington Monthly has posted my new article on the Army, and how it has been affected by the war on terrorism. Clearly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have stretched the Army. But contrary to conventional wisdom, I think the net effect of these wars may prove to be positive. Metaphorically, it's as if the Army went to the gym to do a hard workout — it's sore right now, and in need of some rest, but the Army has emerged from these wars stronger than when it began. Here's a brief excerpt from the story, available on the TWM website:

Since September 11, the U.S. military has expended an enormous amount of spirit, blood, and treasure on battlefields halfway around the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 979 of our soldiers have been killed; and another 5,600 wounded. More than a quarter of a million young men and women have been exposed to the horrors of combat. The abuses at Abu Ghraib have damaged America's moral credibility, and that of our armed forces, around the world, hampering our ability to win hearts and minds in the war on terrorism. The Bush administration's foreign policy decisions have been expensive both in dollars--$149 billion in taxpayer money to date, with billions more yet to be spent--and in material, having all but depleted the Pentagon's stocks of pre-positioned vehicles, equipment, and ordnance. Our enormous commitment of resources to Iraq has emboldened our enemies, including North Korea, and has forced us to neglect other crisis spots such as Haiti and the Sudan. And it has pushed American soldiers to the breaking point. Even when our commitment in Iraq ends, it will be several years before our forces have recovered enough to take on a military venture of similar size.

But the stresses of war--and in particular the aftermath of defeat or failure--have historically spurred the most profound and lasting revolutions in military affairs. During World War II, Gen. George Patton used the Army's trouncing at the Kasserine Pass as an excuse to whip our poorly-disciplined, poorly-trained, and poorly-led forces into shape. Out of the ashes of defeat in Vietnam, a cadre of officers, including Colin Powell and Anthony Zinni, turned a dispirited draft force into a volunteer body that became the most powerful military the world had ever seen. And only after the debacle of Desert One--the failed 1980 Delta Force raid to rescue American hostages from Iran--did the military get serious about special operations and joint warfare.

Today, the pattern appears set to repeat itself. Though we don't yet know whether historians will judge the second Gulf War to have been a victory or a defeat--America decisively won the battle of tanks and artillery, but has yet to win the peace--the searing experience of Iraq is already inspiring the U.S. military to reshape itself for the better.

One area of combat-related development deserves special

[Lootr2Core]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.

I win.

I have played Civ 3 for mange years now..haven't played AoE which has the better diplomacy?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're free to disagree, it's actually a capability and debating point I wouldn't want to see happen because hundreds of thousands would die, be wounded or homeless to prove us right or wrong.

On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.

[E-Z-B]

Bush says he wants to be a "Peace President" now.

Wasn't he boasting about being a "War President" just a few months ago???

Hmmmm.......sounds like a........ FLIP-FLOP to me!

[ZForce915]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.

I win.

Your very first post and about the only thing worth reading in this thread. You should be proud! Way to go newbie!

[Quackzilla]

You're free to disagree, it's actually a capability and debating point I wouldn't want to see happen because hundreds of thousands would die, be wounded or homeless to prove us right or wrong.

On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.

www.goarmy.com/

Prove it.

If you beleive in these wars so much than prove it by joining the army.

10 out of 10 war mongers back down or start flinging insulsts when asked this.

If the war is so just that you would have your fellow countrymen sacrifice everything than why don't you follow them?

And don't use the "family", "job", or "priorities" excuse. According to you the war is a top priority.

[mcwilliams132]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

[MrBadExample]

I would have preferred that he excuse himself and go start talking to his cabinet members to formulate a plan of action rather than sit there for seven minutes waiting for Dick Cheney to tell him what to do.

[Lootr2Core]

Hey, It might have been a good book. Besides did you read the sign behind him.. "Reading makes a country great!'

[dennis_t]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.

And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.

[Pylis]

Actually, Mcwilliams DID make a valid point. You just took the irrelevant "firey death" part of it and then dismissed everything else he said.

I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.

[gkargreen]

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war.

Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!

The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I think it's funny to come back to a thread and see responses that prove the people posting replies to your messages have not read everything you've written and like to jump on one sentence or paragraph in an attempt to make themselves look like they've "won" and proven someone else wrong.

Prove it.

If you beleive in these wars so much than prove it by joining the army.

10 out of 10 war mongers back down or start flinging insulsts when asked this.

Since you missed it.... HERE (http://cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23709&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=20) I'll post it for you again.

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

I did 4 years reserves and 4 years active duty. What were you saying? I probably had a hand in training about a quarter of tank commanders on active duty. That percentage drops every year.

So Quackzilla, what are your qualifications?

[mcwilliams132]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.

And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.

I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....

Hindsight baby!

I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.

And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.

[mcwilliams132]

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war.

Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!

The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...

"Why we support Israel?"

You have to ask that question?

They are the only democracy in the middle east.

The muslim world wants NOTHING MORE than Israel's TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANIALATION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANNET. They (muslim's and isreal's surrounding neighborys) don't want peace (no matter what agreements they make or sign)...never have wanted peace and never will have it.

That's why we defend Israel.

[Quackzilla]

You served Clinton, he didn't put any troops on the ground besides Socom units.

You never got shot at.
What I meant is would you be wiling to go into Iraq and fight and die even though there is no reason for you to be there.

I am not a soldier, I have no military experience.

I will not join an army that is fighting a war I don't beleive in. I will not serve Bush, I will not attack civilians, and I will not guard stolen oil.

I would only join if the fate of the free world depended on the outcome of the war, like in WW2, which is not the case in Iraq.

[dennis_t]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.

And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.

I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....

Hindsight baby!

I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.

And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.

I don't think it's absurd to expect immediate action from the President when our nation is under attack. In fact, I think it's more absurd to hide behind those children and say he didn't want to scare them. Since when does the presence of a classroom of children hamper the President's ability to react quickly?

As far as what he could have done -- VP Dick Cheney ended up being the person giving the go-ahead to shoot down any passenger aircraft that approached Washington without authorization. It was an illegal order, since Cheney is not the Commander-in-Chief and has no standing in the military, but guess what -- Bush wasn't available at the time. Maybe if he'd calmly hustled out of that classroom 7 minutes earlier, our air forces would have actually been getting orders from the person authorized to hand them down.

One last point: No Appeasement? Do a little bit of reading about how we're handling North Korea. Bush is appeasing Kim Jong Il at every turn. He's caved completely there because his tough-guy rhetoric impressed no one, and North Korea continued with its nuclear arms program.

And a quick news flash: toppling Saddam did nothing to help in the War on Terror, because he was not collaborating with any terrorists. There are any number of government investigations that now agree on that point. In fact, they've proven that al-Queda asked Saddam for help and he basically ignored them.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Think about this in terms you can understand. 8 years of service.... out in 1996 that would put me in uniform in 1988. What happened in 1990-91? Hmmmm? Anybody? Anybody? Where do you think crew commanders got combat experience to train future combat crews. BUELLER? BUELLER?

I never "served" a President. The only members of the armed services that do are Navy Stewards when they bring him his meals. I served under the NCA of both Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Now, when we did the infamous "left hook" that drove us hundreds of miles into Iraq, cutting off the Kuwaiti occupation forces from resupply and systematically destroyed remaining armor we were never shot at? On the morning of February 26th 1991 we encountered the Tawakalna Division of the Republican Guard and kindly asked them to exit their vehicles so we could have target practice?

You're right.... nothing meaningful. Never shot at. You can thank God for an all volunteer army that allows you to sit on your ass and criticize anything without consequence while sitting in front of your computer, in your air conditioned home and well stocked refrigerator. You're welcome, I was happy to sit in an overpressured hull of Chobham armor firing depleted uranium shells at an enemy that according to you "never shot back".

Keep digging, that hole will be up to your neck soon and some other nice poster will come along, throw you in your hole and bury you.

[Quackzilla]

The muslim world wants NOTHING MORE than Israel's TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANIALATION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANNET. They (muslim's and isreal's surrounding neighborys) don't want peace (no matter what agreements they make or sign)...never have wanted peace and never will have it.

That's why we defend Israel.

Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.

The people you are basing your stereotype on are "religious fanatics". Crazy people. Christians have them also, just look at Jerry Falwell. And don't forget Jewish fundamentalists, they are the main roadblock on the road to peace in the middle east.

---------------
Examples of Fundamentalism
---------------

A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle.

Jewish fundamentalists bulldoze civilian neighborhoods in Palestine out of pure hatred for Muslims.

Muslim fundamentalists flew planes into the Twin Towers, because their leader, Osama bin Ladin, had indoctrinated them.
====================

As you can see, fundamentalists are very stupid people, and thankfully there are not a lot of them, their actions just tend to speak louder than the words of normal people.



Our defense of Israel is wrong and has effectively stopped any progress towards peace and has forced Palestinial "soldiers" to resort to guerilla warefare because they can't fight back against American tanks and helicopters.

[Quackzilla]

PittsburgAfterDark:

I concede, you win.

I forgot the timeline because I wasn't paying attention.

[dennis_t]

Actually, Mcwilliams DID make a valid point. You just took the irrelevant "firey death" part of it and then dismissed everything else he said.

I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.

Well, Pylis, I think that emotional arguments like that should be countered. They are meant to make a point by appealing to something other than reason, and thus are a cheap tactic.

And I absolutely believe it's an argument that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing, because that goes to the hypocrisy of it all. Clinton struck at al Qaeda during his presidency, and conservatives dismissed it as a "wag-the-dog" maneuver to distract from Whitewater. Would the same criticisms have happened if Bush had been in the same position?

And lastly, I will never agree that inaction for seven minutes during a national crisis is the right thing to do for our President and Commander in Chief. He was a deer caught in the headlights, and you can't accept that. You need to come up with some rationale to explain away the fact that he completely blanked when faced with a true emergency.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...

[mcwilliams132]

Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.

Chapter and verse...

Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?

give me a break...

[Dragonlordfrodo]

"A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle"

Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

DennisT, 9/11 was a SNAFU. It wasn't in anybody's playbook. When we would wargame with imaginary forces at Carilsle many moves or tactics would be disallowed as "unrealisitic" that were similar to the reality of that date.

The FAA didn't have a playbook, neither did the Air Force or the NCA. When jets were scrambled they were put out to sea in anticipation of a cold war scenario of incoming bombers. That's all the military knew how to do was anticipate a traditional attack.

Now let's think about this. Let's say a new tactic by terrorists in the next wave would be to hijack Greyhound busses. They meet up with tractor trailers, clear out the baggage underneath and fill the holds with NBC (Nuclear, biological or chemical.) weapons. The busses are running 15 minutes late which the diver, at gunpoint, reports to dispatch is the result of traffic.

Busses start exploding, gassing or contaminating major population centers at 4PM EDT. There are 12 busses that have been hijacked and they're going off every 8 minutes. That means by 5:30PM EDT you have to have ascertained how many busses were hijacked as opposed to really running late. You can't stop these busses with a 2 car roadblock as they'd ram right through them.

Do you send in tanks, Bradley's or helicopter gunships in an attempt to start destroying all Greyhound busses in visual sight regardless of being able to communicate with them? Take into account that the drivers have a gun to their head and are going to tell you exactly what they think it is you want to hear so he doesn't die.

Now tell me.... how do you react to this situation.

You have have more information on this round of attacks then President Bush did on 9/11 and less than an hour to react and be right but your decision can and will be judged by critics and historians for decades.

GO! The clock is ticking....

[Quackzilla]

I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...

Are you serious?

You just accused every Muslim in the world of being a terrorist!

Thats like saying because a black person robbed a bank last week all black people are bank robbers!


This whole "Guilty until proven innocent then they are still guilty" system is very flawed.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Are all nazis good people? Now shut up...

[Quackzilla]

Are all nazis good people? Now shut up...

Most Nazis were just soldiers doing their job. All they knew was what their commanding officers told them.

Many of them were the dirtiest bastards you could imagine, though.

[MrBadExample]

"A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle"

Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...

Okay, who let the troll in?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Most Nazis were just soldiers doing their job. All they knew was what their commanding officers told them.

Many of them were the dirtiest bastards you could imagine, though.

Most Nazi's weren't soldiers. Very few German soldiers were actually Nazi's. The Waffen SS held the majority of them. The ordinary soldier in the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe were just soliders, not Nazis.

In a historical sense many nations "less desireable" element joined the army or navy to escape something, usually criminal. Soldiering up until the 20th Century was full of the dregs of society outside the officer corps. This being said its been easy for some armies to get their men to commit attrocities.

[Quackzilla]

I had assumed he was using the generalization that all Germans were Nazis because in his previous, and somewhat racist, comments he seemed to come across as being a little "dense".

In reality, everyone who knew what the Nazi party stood for and still called themselves Nazis were bad people.

[gkargreen]

Israel was formed from Palestine as the result of an agreement between the British govt. and the Jewish bankers that wanted a homeland, this was circa 1916, when England ran out of money to continue WWI and needed to borrow money from the bankers to continue the war. THIS was how Israel was formed. Now to say that Israel is a Democracy shows a lack of education, most of the people that live in Israel are not allowed to vote or hold office, that's right, most of the people in Israel are the native people, Palestinians! So, of course Israel is not and cannot be a democracy, because it then would not be a Zionist nation, but once again it would be a Muslim nation due to majority rule. Israel is a bastard nation (i.e., not formed from the majority) formed from backdoor deals with the rich and powerful as a homeland for Jews. Most did not go there until after the Holocaust since it was a pretty crappy place to live at the time. Since the US, as well as the traditional Middle eastern occupying countries (france and england) also supported Israel, and since those three countries (us, england and france) have consistently screwed over the muslims in the middle east since before WW1, there is no wonder the muslims hate them and us. After all, would you allow a bastard govt to just come in an bulldoze your house and throw you and your family into a refugee camp just so their kind could have your family property? Not in this country! Just try that in the US and see how far you would get! BTW, I take issue with the fact that soldiers of the Werhmacht were not members of the Nazi party, I know that the Kriegsmarine absolutely were as was Schindler, so, not all Nazis were bad, but those that were held the levers of power and tried to screw us all!

[dennis_t]

DennisT, 9/11 was a SNAFU. It wasn't in anybody's playbook. When we would wargame with imaginary forces at Carilsle many moves or tactics would be disallowed as "unrealisitic" that were similar to the reality of that date.

The FAA didn't have a playbook, neither did the Air Force or the NCA. When jets were scrambled they were put out to sea in anticipation of a cold war scenario of incoming bombers. That's all the military knew how to do was anticipate a traditional attack.

Now let's think about this. Let's say a new tactic by terrorists in the next wave would be to hijack Greyhound busses. They meet up with tractor trailers, clear out the baggage underneath and fill the holds with NBC (Nuclear, biological or chemical.) weapons. The busses are running 15 minutes late which the diver, at gunpoint, reports to dispatch is the result of traffic.

Busses start exploding, gassing or contaminating major population centers at 4PM EDT. There are 12 busses that have been hijacked and they're going off every 8 minutes. That means by 5:30PM EDT you have to have ascertained how many busses were hijacked as opposed to really running late. You can't stop these busses with a 2 car roadblock as they'd ram right through them.

Do you send in tanks, Bradley's or helicopter gunships in an attempt to start destroying all Greyhound busses in visual sight regardless of being able to communicate with them? Take into account that the drivers have a gun to their head and are going to tell you exactly what they think it is you want to hear so he doesn't die.

Now tell me.... how do you react to this situation.

You have have more information on this round of attacks then President Bush did on 9/11 and less than an hour to react and be right but your decision can and will be judged by critics and historians for decades.

GO! The clock is ticking....

Let me provide you an alternate scenario:

I'm in a classroom for a photo op. I already know one tower of the World Trade Center is burning, the result of a plane crash. An aide steps in and whispers to me that a second plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, something that means a coordinated attack on the country I run is underway.

As President, do I:

(1) Immediately leave the room to find out what the heck is going on, regardless of whether I will make any difference in the moments that follow; or

(2) Sit still, play with a book, and look about the classroom for seven minutes?

As a man of action, a military man, which choice would you make?

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?

[E-Z-B]

After all, would you allow a bastard govt to just come in an bulldoze your house and throw you and your family into a refugee camp just so their kind could have your family property? Not in this country! Just try that in the US and see how far you would get!

It DID happen in this country. The Native Americans lost almost all their land to the British, Spanish, etc governments.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Check out my new avatar? Like it? It's new!

[E-Z-B]

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?

And how about how Bush is preaching about "family values"? Nothing like having an AK-47 in your home to show "family values". That's because he's letting the ban on assault weapons run out this year. So this is how he's committed to fighting terrorism. Sounds like another FLIP-FLOP to me.

[Lootr2Core]

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?

whoa there, now I would label myself fairly liberal in my politics but I don't think that event really shows the character of Bush in a national crisis. Bush had huge approval ratings the few months after 9-11 from both left and right, While I will vote for Kerry because of a number of reasons I don't wan't to belittle what Bush did the days, weeks and month(s) after 9-11. There was a lot of fear in the nation (while I didn't feel it, I met many people who were terrified of the next attack and these were people that live in 'non target rich' environments of North Dakota and Rural manitoba. Bush did a good job in helping to give confidence amidst turmoil and chaos. Could he have done things differently, sure---could his actions in the year after 9-11 been more beneficial to the country (well In my mind yes but you may disagree) but there was like 90% approval in Sept-nov of that year. Of all the things to judge someone's character this really doesn't seem to be the indicator.

Sum up---I disagree with alot of Bush's politics, will vote Straight ticket democrat this election (Congresman, Pres, Gov) but will give 'props' to Bush in his character during the 9-11 times.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

When you vote Democrat, you are only getting a Demo

[strayfoxx]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war. But, I don't think we're being critical of that Bush war. The second one was a bit more of a downright stupid decision, and is a bit harder to link with a "peace president."

Dubya Caption - "Got to concentrate... Country under attack... Huh? The third little piggy said WHAT?"

^I can't remember exactly what book he was reading, but I imagine there are lots of third little piggies spread across the literary world.

You're an idiot. Disassociating the terrorists who flew three bombs into the WTC and saying the 3,000 dead were his fault. What you don't think Clinton is to blame as much as Bush is? Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden two times. I for one dont want to play the blame game with people like you because you are always going to believe that it was all Bushs fault, just like all hardcore Republicans will believe it was all Clintons fault.

The 9/11 commission that you liberals love to quote so much released findings that Bush could have done something about the 9/11 attacks six times, while Clinton could have 4 times. And considering their partisan sensibilities towards the Democratic side of the spectrum obviously both are as much to blame as each other.

Idiots like you get me angry. THE FUCKING TERRORISTS FLEW A PLANE INTO THE WTC, and youre saying the 3,000 dead are HIS FAULT.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You can't make a decision, you can't act or throw things into motion on an uncertainty. In the case of 9/11 the FAA and the 11 air traffic control centers in the nation were completely confused and indecisive. If you can't get good information going upstream you can't get a good decision coming back down the chain of command. It's that simple. NORAD was alerted to multiple hijackings but had no playbook for this. By the time of the Pennsylvania crash jets were scrambled but to go where? To hit what?

People I knew coming in from overseas were told to land wherever. My GF at the time was forced to land in Gander, Newfoundland under threat of shootdown. The best thing to happen that day and there was good that came out of it, is that the entire U.S. commercial aviation fleet was brought to a screeching halt and grounded without incident. There were no crashes, no accidents, no collisions because pilots were making hasty decisions to get in line and land before threat of shootdown.

Then Bush was on AF One circling the nation which is where the President should have been. In an unknown emergency it is policy to get the NCA airborne under fighter protection. Why go to the White House? Why risk an attack? You question these 7 minutes when President Bush defied the Secret Service and key military aides and returned to the White House that evening to address the nation. That was decisive and frankly, inadvisable. Why let an enemy know where key assets are at exact moments in time in a day full of attacks?

You think he should have been doing something... anything to which I reply what should he have done. You answer has been repeated, anything. I don't see what him getting up and leaving 7 minutes early would have changed.

During a combat situation you're working with less than 5 seconds sometimes to make decisions. Typically the training sceanarios you work under are more difficult than combat. That's by design. That way in the "fog of war" you are more apt to make a better decision. Unfortunately 9/11 was never trained for and never expected. That being said it's impossible to judge fairly, in hindsight, how what was done was right or wrong.

I can tell you what Clinton did in response to the first WTC bombing. He treated it as a legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the Khobar Towers bombing, as an internal Saudi legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the USS Cole bombing, he blew up the aspirin factory in the Sudan. I can tell you how Clinton treated the massacre of American soldiers in Somalia, he denied them heavy armor and then cut and run. Now.. which set a more dangerous national precident in regards to how our enemies perceive us? What I just listed..... or 7 minutes thinking "What the hell is going on, what can people tell me and how are we going to react?"

Go ahead. I'm all ears.

[Lootr2Core]

When you vote Democrat, you are only getting a Demo

Although in your mind you probably thought that was a great slam, its actually a nice compliment.

Demo: Noun 1. demo - a visual presentation showing how something works;


So when you vote Democrfat you are getting something that shows you how things can work? Hey thanks for the compliment Dragon,....

Edit: Verb: make understandable and clear

[Dragonlordfrodo]

They think the muslim world hates us because we keep the saudi arabian government in power.

Let me give you some advice. DON'T DRIVE! Everytime you fill up your big honking 3 miles per gallon SUV YOU ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISM, and thus keeping the Iraqi and Saudi government in power. Also you shouldn't drive if you think Iraq is all about oil.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Democrats are Girlie Men - Arnold Schwarzenegger

[E-Z-B]

If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You're right, you're right.

I would've finished my photo op too. Then, I would've gone for some coffee and a bagel, followed by my reading of the Washington Post. Then, after playing some Mario Kart, I would've gone and taken a nice healthy dump before really getting my hands into this whole plane-crashing-into-the-world-trade-center-tower incident.

Riiiiiiiight. :roll:

[PittsburghAfterDark]

See, no serious answer is even attempted. Just a smart ass comment designed to make it look like what was done was the wrong thing without any submission as to what the right thing to do is. Your answer forwarded this discussion in no measureable way and we're all dumber having read it.

[Rayonic]

Bush is a warmonger?

Afghanistan was clearly justified. Nobody can argue that.

Iraq was a continuation of U.S. policy toward that country. You don't thumb your nose at a cease-fire agreement for 12 years and get away with it.

[gkargreen]

Actually, when you assume that Bush had 7 minutes, that is 20/20 hindsight. He/we didn't know what was happening, how many planes were ging to be used, other forms of attack that may have been planned, we DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING! So, Bush should have gotten immediately into action form, because nobody knew what was going to happen at that time. Sorry, Bush froze, and everyone knows it, it's plain on his face.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Technically in the matter of the decision to get the President up and moving anywhere/somewhere/airborne was under the purview of the Secret Service. If there was an attempt made on a Pesidential assination or a danger that it could happen it was up to them to get Bush moving. They concluded at the time there was no immediate danger to the President's life or he would have been up and moving.

If his had been Al Gore I would maintain the same thing. I don't know what you could expect any President to do with the complete lack of information or immediate nearby personal attack. I think in hindsight what could have been done different and the answer comes back to I don't know. I think back to that morning and as I saw the wrecks and burnign buildings I just kept wondering "What else.".

I remember filling up my car, filling 3 5 gallon containers with water, buying enough groceries for a month and just waiting to see what happened next. Oh, and I loaded up a couple of guns in case of civil unrest. I think people forget and have let memories of the fog of that day slip through their minds. Why? I think because nothing has happened here since everyone views it as an anomoly as opposed to something our enemies wish would hapen to us daily.

[dennis_t]

If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You can't make a decision, you can't act or throw things into motion on an uncertainty. In the case of 9/11 the FAA and the 11 air traffic control centers in the nation were completely confused and indecisive. If you can't get good information going upstream you can't get a good decision coming back down the chain of command. It's that simple. NORAD was alerted to multiple hijackings but had no playbook for this. By the time of the Pennsylvania crash jets were scrambled but to go where? To hit what?

People I knew coming in from overseas were told to land wherever. My GF at the time was forced to land in Gander, Newfoundland under threat of shootdown. The best thing to happen that day and there was good that came out of it, is that the entire U.S. commercial aviation fleet was brought to a screeching halt and grounded without incident. There were no crashes, no accidents, no collisions because pilots were making hasty decisions to get in line and land before threat of shootdown.

Then Bush was on AF One circling the nation which is where the President should have been. In an unknown emergency it is policy to get the NCA airborne under fighter protection. Why go to the White House? Why risk an attack? You question these 7 minutes when President Bush defied the Secret Service and key military aides and returned to the White House that evening to address the nation. That was decisive and frankly, inadvisable. Why let an enemy know where key assets are at exact moments in time in a day full of attacks?

You think he should have been doing something... anything to which I reply what should he have done. You answer has been repeated, anything. I don't see what him getting up and leaving 7 minutes early would have changed.

During a combat situation you're working with less than 5 seconds sometimes to make decisions. Typically the training sceanarios you work under are more difficult than combat. That's by design. That way in the "fog of war" you are more apt to make a better decision. Unfortunately 9/11 was never trained for and never expected. That being said it's impossible to judge fairly, in hindsight, how what was done was right or wrong.

I can tell you what Clinton did in response to the first WTC bombing. He treated it as a legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the Khobar Towers bombing, as an internal Saudi legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the USS Cole bombing, he blew up the aspirin factory in the Sudan. I can tell you how Clinton treated the massacre of American soldiers in Somalia, he denied them heavy armor and then cut and run. Now.. which set a more dangerous national precident in regards to how our enemies perceive us? What I just listed..... or 7 minutes thinking "What the hell is going on, what can people tell me and how are we going to react?"

Go ahead. I'm all ears.

I think just sitting there, looking stunned, sets a much more dangerous national precedent. I'm sure the terrorists watch those seven minutes of tape and laugh their butts off, tickled that they were able to derail the thinking and decision-making capability of the leader of the most powerful country in the world through their evil, audacious actions.

Standing up, politely excusing himself and getting IMMEDIATELY into the fray would have sent a much more powerful message to the terrorists and the world. Bush was incapable of doing that.

[gkargreen]

I agree, he inadvertently sent a message to those who perpetrated the crimes that he did not know what to do. And that was probably true, given the circumstances. Heck, I saw the Pentagon 1 minute after the hit, I was on my way to work right as this was happening! But, as we all know, appearances are important, and Bush should have gotten up and presented the appearance of knowing something, even though he/we really did not know much at all. BTW, your right, it did happen here when we committed genocide on the Indians, we screwed them every way possible, as much as the Nazis did to the Jews (well, may be not quite that badm the Holocaust was an unbelievable thing to do...) Now, as the Indians are starting to get back at us by using our gambling affliction to make money, we are trying to stop that, can't let the Indians make money off of us when we can let big corps or govts, do it to us instead!

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're still ignoring the fact that he knew nothing. There were no civillian officialls telling him of organized attack on the nation, just on one target, the WTC. That target had been attacked before in 1993 in a less direct method. You didn't have generals telling him of an immediate threat either.

You answer is still ANYTHIING without being specific. I maintain that no President could have done any better. I'm not even making a defense of this President. I'm saying I don't know what you could have expected anyone to do in those 7 minutes. If he gave the go order in those 7 minutes the Pentagon would have still been hit. United 93 may have been shot down but it never go to its target anyways.

You're saying one man, in 7 minutes of inaction, set a more dangerous precedent than 10 years of knowing war had been declared on us but deciding to treat those at war with us as criminals and a legal matter? You're saying that now that we have toppled two terrorist governments, assasinated Al Qaeda members in more than a dozen countries, have convinced Libya to rejoin the community of nations and get out of the terroism and WMD business that terrorists sit around.... laughing.... because Bush sat around for 7 minutes around 9AM on 9/11/01?

Really. That's astounding.

[dennis_t]

You're still ignoring the fact that he knew nothing. There were no civillian officialls telling him of organized attack on the nation, just on one target, the WTC. That target had been attacked before in 1993 in a less direct method. You didn't have generals telling him of an immediate threat either.

You answer is still ANYTHIING without being specific. I maintain that no President could have done any better. I'm not even making a defense of this President. I'm saying I don't know what you could have expected anyone to do in those 7 minutes. If he gave the go order in those 7 minutes the Pentagon would have still been hit. United 93 may have been shot down but it never go to its target anyways.

You're saying one man, in 7 minutes of inaction, set a more dangerous precedent than 10 years of knowing war had been declared on us but deciding to treat those at war with us as criminals and a legal matter? You're saying that now that we have toppled two terrorist governments, assasinated Al Qaeda members in more than a dozen countries, have convinced Libya to rejoin the community of nations and get out of the terroism and WMD business that terrorists sit around.... laughing.... because Bush sat around for 7 minutes around 9AM on 9/11/01?

Really. That's astounding.

He knew two things. That (1) two planes had struck both the World Trade Center towers and that (2) the nation had been attacked. I'm saying that immediately leaving that classroom to find out what was going on would have sent an invaluable message to the world, that we had a strong and effective leader who pounced on the problem.

And we have not toppled two terrorist governments, only one -- the one in Afghanistan. As multiple government investigations have concluded, Saddam did not work with al Queda at all. In fact, al Queda asked for help and he basically ignored them. Our attack of Iraq did nothing to further the War on Terror. You could argue it hurt the war effort by expending valuable military resources in the wrong direction, destabilizing a non-terrorist-supporting government while leaving other more guilty parties in the region (Iran, Saudi Arabia) to continue their dirty business.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Oh give me a break that Iraq wasn't a terrorist government. So, they didn't have ties to 9/11. We never said they did. We said and have said several times since, as did the 9/11 commission that there were contacts between the Hussein government and Al Qaeda none of which directly lead to Iraqi involvement in the attack.

Now you're saying that a government that invaded Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990, gassed their ethnic minorities, brutallly supressed their Shiite majority in 1991 and awarded $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber that launched attacks against Israeli's was NOT a terrorist government? What, they were a garden society?

Your logic astounds me.

[dennis_t]

Oh give me a break that Iraq wasn't a terrorist government. So, they didn't have ties to 9/11. We never said they did. We said and have said several times since, as did the 9/11 commission that there were contacts between the Hussein government and Al Qaeda none of which directly lead to Iraqi involvement in the attack.

Now you're saying that a government that invaded Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990, gassed their ethnic minorities, brutallly supressed their Shiite majority in 1991 and awarded $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber that launched attacks against Israeli's was NOT a terrorist government? What, they were a garden society?

Your logic astounds me.

A few notes regarding your argument:

(1) Every example of Iraqii aggression you give took place more than a decade ago, save the awards to suicide bombers.

(2) Contact does not equal collaboration or cooperation. I'm sure agents of the United States contact terrorist-harboring countries like Saudia Arabia and Iran all the time, and that doesn't make us collaborators in terror.

(3) Iraq had neither attacked the United States nor threatened to attack us when we launched the latest war against that country, nor had they harbored a single one of the 9/11 terrorists at any time. Iraq was no threat to the United States.

(4) If no one is saying they had no ties to 9/11, then why did we attack?

[ex0]

*Waits for the "Because Saddam was a bad guy" response.*

[Delta]

OMG! IF only Bush had left the classroom seven minutes earlier the world would be a better place!!!! OMG OMG OM!!!

:rolleyes

[PittsburghAfterDark]

1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended.

2. The Saudi Arabian government does not harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy. Iran does. Iraq did. Hence the death of wanted terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal in a Baghdad hospital. No one got that kind of treatment without implicit government approval..

You're trying to equate contact indirectly as being direct contact. Just because we have a backdoor "in" to contact the Iranian government through France or Canada doesn't mean we have established relations. The countries in question, Saudi Arabia excepted, have offical state contact with terrorist groups. Hezbollah is Iran's pet.

3. Iraq was a threat to world stability under the government of Saddam Hussein. That had been proved numerous times by their own internal and external actions. Recently Vladmir Putin came forward and stated that the current Russian intelligence service, the old KGB, had collected evidence that Iraq did indeed harbor desires and plans to attack the United States directly through its intelligence service or agents working for the government.

The purpose of a pre-emptive strategy is to ensure your enemy does not gather strength, the will and ability to strike great harm. This is a policy that was signed off on by the United States congress before we invaded Iraq last year. This policy was voted for by John Kerry and John Edwards and pre-emption remains on their election platform. This isn't a policy of one President. It is now standing doctrine of the United States government.

4. I have listed the reasons already.

[dennis_t]

1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended.

2. The Saudi Arabian government does not harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy. Iran does. Iraq did. Hence the death of wanted terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal in a Baghdad hospital. No one got that kind of treatment without implicit government approval..

You're trying to equate contact indirectly as being direct contact. Just because we have a backdoor "in" to contact the Iranian government through France or Canada doesn't mean we have established relations. The countries in question, Saudi Arabia excepted, have offical state contact with terrorist groups. Hezbollah is Iran's pet.

3. Iraq was a threat to world stability under the government of Saddam Hussein. That had been proved numerous times by their own internal and external actions. Recently Vladmir Putin came forward and stated that the current Russian intelligence service, the old KGB, had collected evidence that Iraq did indeed harbor desires and plans to attack the United States directly through its intelligence service or agents working for the government.

The purpose of a pre-emptive strategy is to ensure your enemy does not gather strength, the will and ability to strike great harm. This is a policy that was signed off on by the United States congress before we invaded Iraq last year. This policy was voted for by John Kerry and John Edwards and pre-emption remains on their election platform. This isn't a policy of one President. It is now standing doctrine of the United States government.

4. I have listed the reasons already.

Where is your proof that Iraq harbored terrorists as a matter of state policy? Just because Bush administration officials say it, doesn't make it so. (For the record, Abu Nidal committed suicide in his Baghdad apartment, rather than dying in a Baghdad hospital. He killed himself as Iraqi agents were preparing to take him in for questioning. Not the action of a guy who felt he was being supported by the regime, I would argue.)

And even if Iraq had any intention to harm the United States -- and we only have Putin's word on that, not even our own intelligence agencies will say that -- we now know that he had no weapons of mass destruction and no way to make them on any accellerated schedule. We would have known that before the war, had Bush allowed the weapons inspectors to finish their work.

And I wouldn't be so quick to pull out the pre-emption strategy, since the pre-emption strategy seems to only apply against Iraq. We haven't hit Saudi Arabia, which remains as radical as ever, nor have we hit any other country. Instead we hit Iraq, because they were an easy target with a Boogeyman for a leader, and in so doing squandered our resources. Pre-emption under Bush is a joke and a failure, and our country is less safe for it.

[Medium_Pimpin]

I think he's going thru the alphabet in his head....

P is for Peace, Power, Pretzels.

[gkargreen]

You say that Bush did as good as any president by sitting there for 7 minutes and reading to the classroom, I simply cannot believe that you seriously believe that, as a leut in the military. You, as well as me, know that appearances are important when you are projecting a figure of power, and that as president, that image is very important. In military matters, creating the appearance of power, or of knowing what your enemies are up, gives you leverage over them, even if you don't know what is going on. These are tactics that have been used since the beginning of warfare, I'm sure you are quite aware of them. If I was the terrorist that was watching tv and seeing Bush sitting there while my planes were destroying the buildings, I would think that he either doesn't have a clue, is scared, or doesn't care. If, on the other hand, he excuses hisself and leaves to do?, then I am concerned that he is on to what I am doing, and is preparing to do something in return. That's simply the way it is, and how Bush, or any other leader, military or otherwise, would be percieved by his enemies. And I'm sure that those kind of topics are taught at war college. That you are a Bush supporter is fine, we support who we like, that's democracy, but Bush froze at a critical time. We know NOW that any actions would have been for naught, the damage had already been done, but AT THAT TIME we did not know what more would be coming. You yourself acknowledge that when you indicated that you loaded up your guns in preparation for civil unrest that may follow the attacks. Also, our attack on Iraq was obviously a wrong move that had little to do with terrorism, if you have any knowledge of history of that region, you will know that by destabilizing the Hussein regieme we made it easier for terrorist to set up bases there, Hussein was keeping them in check. The real terrorist threat/country is Pakistan ( can't believe nobody mentioned them!), that is where Al Queda is set up, where the really religious Muslims are operating, where attacks on Afganistan are occuring from, etc. And just to finally solidify the wrongness of the Iraq invasion, a source/friend at the Company, was privy to the traffic coming in on Iraq (he's an analyst) and he was astounded that the case for war was made. He's been an analyst for the Company since Viet Nam, and a conservative/republican, and a supporter, until the Iraq war...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You say that Bush did as good as any president by sitting there for 7 minutes and reading to the classroom.

No, I 'm saying that I don't believe it made a difference and don't fault the job of him and his advisors for immediately pulling out. The Pentagon plane was 30 minutes after the second WTC hit which is the deer in the headlights look. The Pennsylvania plane was another 30 mintues after that?

That appearance was not on live TV. It was as routine as anything any President does. There were no uplink trucks, even from C-Span, showing that classroom scene on television. No one anywhere in the world was watching it live laughing their ass off. That's why I don't think it made a difference if he left or not.

As to what your friend/analyst acquaintance thinks about the intelligence that the CIA produced? Chances are if he exists he blew every security clearance he has if he's sharing such information with you. Which while not completley disbelieving you I am skeptical of your claim.

I've never even claimed the intelligence of the scope of Iraqs WMD capabilities were a proper cause for launching the invasion. I will maintain that there were sufficient grounds of existing cease fire violations to warrant renewed military action. I don't even view the renewed hostilities in Iraq as a seperate conflict but a conclusion of the UN resolutions passed in 1990. Also UN resoltion 1441 was as much international justification as we ever really needed to get. There isn't one country that voted for that, including France, that knew exactly what that vote meant and implied.

Clinton came up with the policy or regime change in Iraq in 1998. Not Bush, it would have been Gore's policy as well. When Hussein threw out the inspectors in 1998 and we were again bombing Iraq and Baghdad on CNN, Sky TV and FOX News I was supportive of that action as well. In fact I would have supported boots on the ground and special ops missions run against likely sites to come to a conclusive verification one way or another even if it meant casualties.

It amazes me that the issue in this thread has boiled down to one thing. 7 minutes in a classroom. I'm surprised how deeply from the well of Farenheit 9/11 the youth of this country have drank.

[Pylis]

It DOES seem pretty rediculous, PAD. The whole thing is just a big smear on Bush.

[fireball343]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

Hey, i was just wondering, Since when did we attack Iraq because of 9/11?
I could have sworn it was to remove Saddam, and the fact that he had weapons and was not following International law.
I must be wrong. I mean WE got Iraqis killed.

I'll let you all in on a little secret.

......SADDAM WAS A PROBLEM DURING AND BEFORE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE.!!

He didn't mention it so it wasn't off concern, the second Bush tries to do something it's his fault it happened. I mean we caused the Veitnam war, didn't we? I mean that's what your telling me, and Pearl Harbor, it's our fault. Hitler, yeah we did that too. Uhhhh..............

NO! just cuz we try to help other countries doesn't make us bad. and i'm sorry if you where dumb enough to sign up for the armed forces and expect to get through college for free without paying.

Some people Serve to serve others want free college.

[Quackzilla]

BEFORE BUSH ENTERED THE SCHOOL HE WAS TOLD THAT 1 PLANE HIT THE WTC.

He should have been alert then. Later when the SS told him of the second plane he just sat there, knowing full well that the US was under attack.

Jets were scrambled after the first attack but no orders were given because Bush was sitting in a classroom for the duration of the attacks.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

I think bush is behind 9/11 here is why.

When the first plane hit his SS guard whispered "A plane hit the WTC" and bush said "I know". How did he know? There were no TVs in the classroom! So I think bush coordinated the attacks and for that, he should be hung for treason

[007snake]

2. The Saudi Arabian government does not harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy.
LOL YEAH RIGHT

[gkargreen]

I am assuming by your post PAD, that you acknowledge that appearances can make a difference, but you are correct, in hindsight, that Bush's actions did not make a difference in what happened and what was to happen. It was bascially over before we could do anything, although I believe that there were other planes that were to be used but were not abducted by the terrorist. If history has taught us anything, it is that unstable goverments can become breeding grounds for various types of terrorist organizations, Bush the elder new that taking out Hussein would leave a power vacuum that Iran would try to exploit, that's why he stopped the invasion, as you know. And thats what is happening now, with terrorist coming from all over to take potshots at the americans serving there, as well as at Iraqis trying to set up a democratic (as much as they can) government. This was bound to happen when such a iron fisted government was toppled, and the many factions were allowed to do as they pleased and try to grab power for themselves. We have supported many such similar governments when it pleased us, Pinochet, etc., so we cannot make any claims to morality in our dealing with outlaw countries. Indeed, both Iran and North Korea are much more of a threat to us than Iraq, as I am sure you would know with your military background, but we cannot defeat either one without serious consequences, as you would also know. With regards to the Viet Nam slam, we went into VN to stop the spread of communism, not to save the people there who were fighting with us during WW2 against Japan, we, in paticular the French of which VN was a colony, renegged on an agreement with Ho Chi Minh for sovereignty for VN, so he went over to USSR to get their freedom, something we did in fighting the Bristish for our own freedom (using the French as they used us). The same is true of Cuba, they came to us first for help, we said no ( because we did, through large corporations and the Mafia, run the country under Batista) then they went to USSR. Boy, I can see there needs to be a history review here! And BTW, I'm not some young punk, even if that mattered, been voting since 1970. And as far as my CIA friend, he gave me no specifics to his traffic, just indicated that he saw that there was nothing to go to war, that it was a a lie, and that he was very disgusted with what happened. He's even older than I, and when you reach this age, you really don't give a crap about supporting lies to save your job...

[dennis_t]

You say that Bush did as good as any president by sitting there for 7 minutes and reading to the classroom.

No, I 'm saying that I don't believe it made a difference and don't fault the job of him and his advisors for immediately pulling out. The Pentagon plane was 30 minutes after the second WTC hit which is the deer in the headlights look. The Pennsylvania plane was another 30 mintues after that?

That appearance was not on live TV. It was as routine as anything any President does. There were no uplink trucks, even from C-Span, showing that classroom scene on television. No one anywhere in the world was watching it live laughing their ass off. That's why I don't think it made a difference if he left or not.

As to what your friend/analyst acquaintance thinks about the intelligence that the CIA produced? Chances are if he exists he blew every security clearance he has if he's sharing such information with you. Which while not completley disbelieving you I am skeptical of your claim.

I've never even claimed the intelligence of the scope of Iraqs WMD capabilities were a proper cause for launching the invasion. I will maintain that there were sufficient grounds of existing cease fire violations to warrant renewed military action. I don't even view the renewed hostilities in Iraq as a seperate conflict but a conclusion of the UN resolutions passed in 1990. Also UN resoltion 1441 was as much international justification as we ever really needed to get. There isn't one country that voted for that, including France, that knew exactly what that vote meant and implied.

Clinton came up with the policy or regime change in Iraq in 1998. Not Bush, it would have been Gore's policy as well. When Hussein threw out the inspectors in 1998 and we were again bombing Iraq and Baghdad on CNN, Sky TV and FOX News I was supportive of that action as well. In fact I would have supported boots on the ground and special ops missions run against likely sites to come to a conclusive verification one way or another even if it meant casualties.

It amazes me that the issue in this thread has boiled down to one thing. 7 minutes in a classroom. I'm surprised how deeply from the well of Farenheit 9/11 the youth of this country have drank.

Well, first off, I'm 36 so I'm not sure I qualify as the youth of this country.

It's also pretty condescending to belittle the fact that we see those seven minutes as a serious lapse in leadership. You may disagree, but the previous poster made a good point -- immediate action would have sent a message to the terrorists and the world, regardless of the presence of TV cameras. And since when did Bush pride himself on acting differently when there's a camera on him? I thought his whole shtick was his authenticness. Well, in those seven minutes we saw authentic Bush -- a deer in the headlights, without a clue, no one telling him what to do.

Regarding the war on Iraq, even if you see this as a continuation of the 1990 hostilities, I have to ask you: why do you feel they needed to be continued? Iraq has no proven ties to terrorism, as opposed to neighbors Saudi Arabia and Iran. Why pick back up those hostilities, when Iraq was contained and absolutely no threat? Why are we attacking in the wrong direction in the War on Terror?

If we were really into reopening a continuing conflict, there's always that Korean War thing that's still going on to this day. Kim Jong Il is a greater threat than Saddam was, and now has nukes because Bush completely blew diplomacy with North Korea. But even though they're a member of the Axis of Evil, I don't see our forces spilling over the border into North Korea. If Bush is all about the pre-emption, why aren't we going it?

PAD, I think you're a smart guy and a good American, and I applaud your military service. I just want to understand why you hold the opinions that you hold, when the facts indicate that the Bush administration has made the world less safe, not more. Hell, even the State Department had to revise its annual terrorism report to note that violence increased last year, rather than decreased.

The world is not safer because we're in Iraq. The world is not safer because we half-assed the job in Afghanistan. And the Bush Administration and a fully Republican Congress are the sole place where the fault lies.

[dennis_t]

I think bush is behind 9/11 here is why.

When the first plane hit his SS guard whispered "A plane hit the WTC" and bush said "I know". How did he know? There were no TVs in the classroom! So I think bush coordinated the attacks and for that, he should be hung for treason

And then there are these folks...... :roll:

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Wow I think it is just me you are against, because I said something anti bush (You are anti bush) and I am being bashed for it.

[MisterRaven]

Plus, I'm sure the military would teach you an objective, unbiased version of politics in general.

:rofl:

You actually got an audible laugh out of me from that comment. :lol:

[trq]

1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended.

Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.

[BABETOOTH]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

You forgot ASSWIPE! :lol: Very impressive!!!

[dennis_t]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

Hey, i was just wondering, Since when did we attack Iraq because of 9/11?
I could have sworn it was to remove Saddam, and the fact that he had weapons and was not following International law.
I must be wrong. I mean WE got Iraqis killed.

I'll let you all in on a little secret.

......SADDAM WAS A PROBLEM DURING AND BEFORE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE.!!

He didn't mention it so it wasn't off concern, the second Bush tries to do something it's his fault it happened. I mean we caused the Veitnam war, didn't we? I mean that's what your telling me, and Pearl Harbor, it's our fault. Hitler, yeah we did that too. Uhhhh..............

NO! just cuz we try to help other countries doesn't make us bad. and i'm sorry if you where dumb enough to sign up for the armed forces and expect to get through college for free without paying.

Some people Serve to serve others want free college.

Ummm...fireball....

Don't know if you've read the latest literature, but (1) no one has found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and (2) Saddam had allowed inspectors in and was following international law. So the two reasons you just gave for the invasion are bogus.

And yes, Saddam has been a continuing problem, but guess what? So was Iran, so was North Korea....hell, so was Ireland, if you want to get technical. But Saddam was a contained threat with no weapons and no real weapons making capabilities. So why did we attack him, aside from distracting the country from the Bush administration's failure to adequately invade Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden?

[BABETOOTH]

MBE, I did run the company. From 94-96 I helped train nearly 80% of the armored units in this country. I was in the top 5% of the graduating class of my section from the war college. You don't get to be an instructor at the NTC because you're a step above potato peeler.

:idea: I say you should run for President on 2008 :wink: If your idol (Bush) could do it so can you. It seems your level of education is higher of that of Bush, who happens to have the lowest I.Q. among U.S. Presidents. :D

[CTLesq]

1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended.

Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.

We still are at a state of war with North Korea.

Find me the peace treaty we signed for them.

Ditto Iraq.

No technicality about it. And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

CTL

[BABETOOTH]

PittsburghAfterDark I need your help!!! :lol: I am going to a costume party (70's Theme) on Saturday and I have nothing 70's to wear, so to be funny i was just going to dress up as a "Ghost" but my wife wont allow me to put two holes on this white sheet we have. :idea: Can you lend me your "Clan" outfit ? I'm sure you have one you can spare :wink: :wink:

O:) Just having some fun!!!

[Lootr2Core]

And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)

[trq]

Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.

Chapter and verse...

Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?

give me a break...

Sure. How about:

"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love transgressors." 2:191

or:

"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say: 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To Him we submit.'" 29:46

or maybe:

"Repel evil with what is better and he, between whom and you was hatred, will become as a warm bosom-friend." (I admit I can't find the actual chapter and verse for that one, though.)

Are Muslims pacifists? Nope. But then, neither are Christians and Jews last time I checked. Considering so few non-Muslims know the first thing about them, they sure are an easy target, though.

[Lootr2Core]

Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.

Chapter and verse...

Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?

give me a break...

Sure. How about:

"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love transgressors." 2:191

or:

"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say: 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To Him we submit.'" 29:46

or maybe:

"Repel evil with what is better and he, between whom and you was hatred, will become as a warm bosom-friend." (I admit I can't find the actual chapter and verse for that one, though.)

Are Muslims pacifists? Nope. But then, neither are Christians and Jews last time I checked. Considering so few non-Muslims know the first thing about them, they sure are an easy target, though.

ex-cellent

[batman2million]

9/11 wasn't Bushs fault..like some smart ppl are sayin. He jus didn't react the rite way. Now I "assume".. most of the ppl on this fourm are using facts and information from Michel Moores Film. it was dumb for Bush to blame 9/11 on Iraq. Too many ppl are pointing too many fingers here and there! I'm a Muslim and most muslim i kno keep sayin it was the jews and that bush is jus tryin to kill all muslims.. I have no idea where they get this from...Nevertheless, ppl are pointing too many fingers. And its really hard to get evidence on this to prove much. And yes the Quran does protest violence. I dunno where ppl find this crap sayin muslims wanna kill... blame the ppl not Islam.

[Delta]

pittsburghafter dark is right. you rule, man.

[punqsux]

PittsburghAfterDark I need your help!!! :lol: I am going to a costume party (70's Theme) on Saturday and I have nothing 70's to wear, so to be funny i was just going to dress up as a "Ghost" but my wife wont allow me to put two holes on this white sheet we have. :idea: Can you lend me your "Clan" outfit ? I'm sure you have one you can spare :wink: :wink:

O:) Just having some fun!!!

:rofl:

[trq]

1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended.

Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.

We still are at a state of war with North Korea.

Find me the peace treaty we signed for them.

Ditto Iraq.

No technicality about it. And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

CTL

Okay, then let's go with "loophole" or "far-fetched abuse." You've managed to both misconstrue and make my point. No, we didn't ever sign a formal peace treaty with North Korea (just an armistice), but that doesn't prevent a common sense view that holds to the spirit rather than the letter of the law; one that says the Korean war has been over since 1953. I suppose you COULD be a stickler for the legal definition, but then I'd just say that since the President doesn't have the authority to simply declare war without congressional approval, as per -- you know -- the constitution, neither Korea nor Iraq was a "legal" war in the first place, and not fit to act as precedent for the resumption of hostilities anyway.

Like I said: that justification seems to only hold water for lawyers on the government payroll.

And what makes you think I'm NOT a lawyer myself? :)

[trq]

I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...

Dude, I've read all of the "Homeland Security" thread you took part in, and considering how that went for you, I'm going to give you a piece of advice: sit this one out. You're treading some EXTREMELY insulting ground here, but I'm going to refrain from starting in with you, so I hope you recognize a random act of kindness when you see it.

[MrBadExample]

MBE, I did run the company. From 94-96 I helped train nearly 80% of the armored units in this country. I was in the top 5% of the graduating class of my section from the war college. You don't get to be an instructor at the NTC because you're a step above potato peeler.

:idea: I say you should run for President on 2008 :wink: If your idol (Bush) could do it so can you. It seems your level of education is higher of that of Bush, who happens to have the lowest I.Q. among U.S. Presidents. :D

I don't think I have ever agreed with PAD on anything, but I don't recall him posting anything that would make me believe he's a racist. If I'm wrong, correct me. If not, save it for someone who deserves it.

[CTLesq]

And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I can't help but get a kick out of Babetooth's flames. Not only were they weak and ineffective it took 3 posts, that I wasn't even online or awake to respond to, for him to get his fill of insults off his chest.

Now that's crisp, clear and precise writing to espouse an opposing point of view! The New York City school system must be proud. Let me guess.... captain of the forensics team?

[CTLesq]

What you original stated was:


Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.

Okay, then let's go with "loophole" or "far-fetched abuse."

Loophole? How? Far fetched abuse? How? A state of war continues to exist. That hostilities are not every day/month/or year does not excuse that. That you as a member of the public does not change that FACT.

But I don't even need that Congress voted to authorize war against Iraq in October of 2002.

The Text of the Joint Resolution: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

You've managed to both misconstrue and make my point. No, we didn't ever sign a formal peace treaty with North Korea (just an armistice), but that doesn't prevent a common sense view that holds to the spirit rather than the letter of the law; one that says the Korean war has been over since 1953. I suppose you COULD be a stickler for the legal definition, but then I'd just say that since the President doesn't have the authority to simply declare war without congressional approval, as per -- you know -- the constitution, neither Korea nor Iraq was a "legal" war in the first place, and not fit to act as precedent for the resumption of hostilities anyway.

Misconstue your point? How so?

The essence of your post was: "By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended."

And yet you absolutely conceed the point. We still are at war with North Korea, just as we remained in a state of hostilities with Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Make your point? Hollow rhetoric.

As for requiring Congressional approval do I need to point out the following:

http://www.jcs-group.com/military/wars.html

In fact, Congress has declared war in only five of the thirteen major shooting wars in which the U.S.A. has been involved:

The War of 1812 against Great Britain [1812-1814]*;
The Mexican-U.S.A. War [1846-1848]*;
The Spanish-American War [1898]*;
World War I [1917-1918]*;
World War II [1941-1945]*.
In each of the eight other major wars involving the U.S.A., Congress did not pass a declaration of war and the President did not recommend to Congress that it pass such a declaration. The eight undeclared major wars were:
The U.S. naval war with France [1798-1800]*;
The first war against the Barbary pirate states of North Africa [1801-1805]*;
The second war against the Barbary states [1815]*;
The Mexican-U.S.A. conflicts immediately preceeding American entrance into World War I [1914-1917]*;
The Korean War [1950-1953]*;
The Vietnam War [1961-1975]*;
The Persian Gulf War [1991]*;
The Kosovo-Yugoslav War [1999]*.

*Dates of America's direct involvement in the war.

Like I said: that justification seems to only hold water for lawyers on the government payroll.

No, it only appears to be incorrect to people who under any set of circumstances would still disagree with it.

And what makes you think I'm NOT a lawyer myself? :)
CTL

[Lootr2Core]

And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.

lts apparant that you care.

[CTLesq]

And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.

lts apparant that you care.

I care enough to tell you to go F yourself.

[Lootr2Core]

And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)

When I give two craps about your opinion of me I will let you know.

lts apparant that you care.

I care enough to tell you to go F yourself.


nah better not do that, i'd go blind and I couln't read your ever so witty posts.

[-Never4ever-]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

he noob has a point. A damn good point.

[gkargreen]

No, actually he has a good point. Even if I am unable to change your mind, hopefully there will some thinking going on here, and some of you will think more about what is going on in our country, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. After all, this is the essence of democracy, the reason our country was founded, by men who risked their fortunes, familes and their lives to make a country where we, in whatever form we live, military, pacifist, christian, muslim, non-believer, worker, GAMER, whatever, could have a say in their lives and the way they want to live it. And, I have never seen since then anyone who made the sacrifices these guys, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Henry, and so many others did, for all of us. So use that democracy, thats what its here for!

[WarrenGekko]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

[CaseyRyback]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?

[dennis_t]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

So explain it to me, how was Saddam Hussein "violating NATO"? What was he doing, specifically?

And also, how would Iraq have funded a second 9/11, given that they had no WMDs, no easy way to make WMDs, and no money due to international sanctions?

Irrational fear is not an argument.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Militant islam is Hitler in a headscarf.

[CheapyD]

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

I thought hard about it. How can Iraq have WMDs? Those people don't even have clothes...

[Pezdro]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

Militant Muslims, are not as scary as Militant Americans (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5350.htm). These anti-goverment activists are your neighbors and are not as easily recognizable. They are also responsible for the second-worst terrorist attack on american soil. They are well organized, well trained, and religiously dedicated to causing massive amouts of destruction. They are constantly overlooked since they are americans. We only caught this guy since he fucked up at a traffic stop.

9/11 didn't really kill the airline industry, it actually saved. It had been pretty lackluster before and not doing so well. The billions of dollars they got in corporate welfare kept them afloat.

Truthfully, what has the Bush Administration done to keep Terrorist activites in check? For the most part, what we now see from the 9/11 Reports, they're failures are some of the biggest reasons that my city is missing two of its buildings. I live in a city that is slowly believing that we lost our towers due to their inability to control the situation.

I agree with the fact that we should have gone to Iraq. But the truth is, why did our president and his administration go on information that was obviously false? Why can we get the truth from them? Why must they mistrust us and leave huge holes of information? Why is no information released about internal militia groups? All these questions are not being answered and this sours me greatly on this administration. I don't think George W and his staff have done the job they could have done. I think they been distracted with utterly worthless issues that should be decided on a state level. I seen the run up a defecit and deny cash for my own city to help rebuild itself. I seen an economy that has been promised to get better and do consitently worse. I seen this adminstration promised
hi-speed internet but not healthcare.

Being killed by a muslim terrorist attack in america, even for those of us in new york, ranks low. Hell, that's what finding nemo was all about. I have a better chance of losing my job in this shitty economy, getting hit by a car and not being able to afford an operation.

I can't vote for a man out of irrational fear. That's not what this country stands for.

[trq]

Okay, I'm willing to say maybe I'm the one not making my point clearly enough. Let's try...

Loophole? How? Far fetched abuse? How? A state of war continues to exist. That hostilities are not every day/month/or year does not excuse that. That you as a member of the public does not change that FACT.

Actually, it DOES change that fact. It's the public who gets to elect politicians and I don't think that anybody -- regardless of political affiliation -- is interested in electing a representative who considers us to be in a state of indefinite war with the Sudan, Libya, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Iran, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Syria, Cuba, China, the Phillipines and so on. After all, as you say, even though we don't need to bother adhering to the law and getting congressional approval to start a war, we DO need to have a strict, literal interpretation when it comes to ending a war with a cease-fire or an armistice rather than with an actual peace treaty. I find that a little selective, but then, who needs consistency or fairness when it comes to the law, international or otherwise.

But I don't even need that Congress voted to authorize war against Iraq in October of 2002.

Misconstue your point? How so?

The essence of your post was: "By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended."

And yet you absolutely conceed the point. We still are at war with North Korea, just as we remained in a state of hostilities with Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Make your point? Hollow rhetoric.

I think I've clarified this now.

As for requiring Congressional approval do I need to point out the following:

http://www.jcs-group.com/military/wars.html

Nope. But does the fact that something is done frequently make it legal? I must have missed the precedent for that. I don't care that we've flouted the constitution on numerous occasions, over several presedencies, and among both parties. That doesn't make it any more acceptable now.

No, it only appears to be incorrect to people who under any set of circumstances would still disagree with it.

That's fine. My goal here wasn't to convince you per se.

[trq]

Militant islam is Hitler in a headscarf.

And Bush is Hitler with a flag pin?

Let's just leave the whole Hitler chestnut out of it.

This particular rhetorical device is a well-worn crutch on both sides. Conservatives like to equate Hussein with Hitler, and Bush often gets the comparison from the more extreme liberals. Frankly, the comparison sucks in both cases. It's not even close. NOT EVEN CLOSE. I'm not a big fan of either of 'em, but unless they happened to kill twelve million people while nobody was looking, it's nothing more than tacky hyperbole that trades genuine tragedy for political gain.

Let's all try not to piss on the Holocaust by comparing every petty dictator du jour to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind. Seriously. Saddam ain't Hitler, and this ain't WWII.

[WarrenGekko]

Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.

[WarrenGekko]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?

That's doesn't make any sense. Who's warrengekko?

[jmcc]

Wait, wait, wait. Did I see Hitler come into this? That's Godwin's Law (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)), people! This thread is over! Winner by default: the hippie liberal douches, for not bringing up Hitler first! Sorry, pissed-off white trash redneck conservatives, but them's the rules.

[dennis_t]

Wait, wait, wait. Did I see Hitler come into this? That's Godwin's Law (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)), people! This thread is over! Winner by default: the hippie liberal douches, for not bringing up Hitler first! Sorry, pissed-off white trash redneck conservatives, but them's the rules.

LOL! Didn't know the rule, but I shore do luv it! :lol:

[Pezdro]

Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.

Saddam is our second biggest threat? After Libya? After North Korea? After Terrorist Couples in Texas with chemical Weapons?

What the fuck are you smoking? Bush was busy reading to a bunch of little kids when a number of people living in my goddamn city died in a building while the goddamn Vice President sat on his hands. They then sell litographs of the disaster site to raise cash.

The biggest threat to america is the bunch of bastards who fucked up and then are trying to make cash off it.

[dennis_t]

Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.

I note that you didn't respond to a single one of my questions, which pretty much tells me what I need to know about the strength of your argument.

There is no proof of recent Iraqi support of terrorism, no proof that he was a threat to the United States and no proof that he had or could soon have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq never attacked the United States, and we have no proof of any serious intention to attack the United States.

And by the way, you mention Osama bin Laden. Where is he, anyway? Wasn't he our number one target at one point? You know, the guy who actually led an attack against our country? Yet now Bush says in a press conference, "I don't know where he is and I don't care."

Yeah....I can see why you sleep safe at night with Bush in charge.

[WarrenGekko]

Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.

Saddam is our second biggest threat? After Libya? After North Korea? After Terrorist Couples in Texas with chemical Weapons?

What the shaq-fu are you smoking? Bush was busy reading to a bunch of little kids when a number of people living in my goddamn city died in a building while the goddamn Vice President sat on his hands. They then sell litographs of the disaster site to raise cash.

The biggest threat to america is the bunch of bastards who shaq-fued up and then are trying to make cash off it.

Saddam is our second after Osama (that's why I put him in parens). Anyway, I agree that the biggest threat IS the bastards who fued up. Because Saddam and Osama are now less of a threat then they were before.

[WarrenGekko]

Trust me. I don't have irrational fear. Bush has ensured that I won't have a need for fear. Bush has ensured that our second biggest threat (after Osama) has been eliminated. To be naive to think that Saddam wouldn't support militant muslims perform a terrorist attack greater than 9/11 is the luxury you have now that he's gone.

Militant Muslims are extremely jealous of Americans and use religion to persuade others to kill innocent people.
I still can't believe people would think that 9/11 help save the airline industry. Osama has an agenda to hurt us economically and this was a evil mastermind's attempt to eliminate one of the US's biggest economic infrastructures. It was brilliant but thank God, the airlines survived it.

I note that you didn't respond to a single one of my questions, which pretty much tells me what I need to know about the strength of your argument.

There is no proof of recent Iraqi support of terrorism, no proof that he was a threat to the United States and no proof that he had or could soon have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq never attacked the United States, and we have no proof of any serious intention to attack the United States.

And by the way, you mention Osama bin Laden. Where is he, anyway? Wasn't he our number one target at one point? You know, the guy who actually led an attack against our country? Yet now Bush says in a press conference, "I don't know where he is and I don't care."

Yeah....I can see why you sleep safe at night with Bush in charge.

I can sleep just fine. Osama lives in a rock and Saddam is no longer in power. They are much less of a threat now. They can't operate as freely without fear of retribution like they were before. Although, I am not saying that Osama is not a threat anymore but he has signifantly less wiggle room. I like that. I really like that. I don't want to live in the same conditions that Isreal faces daily.

Anyway, apparently someone mentioned Hitler and the thread is dead now. (According to the rules)

[BABETOOTH]

I can't help but get a kick out of Babetooth's flames. Not only were they weak and ineffective it took 3 posts, that I wasn't even online or awake to respond to, for him to get his fill of insults off his chest.

Now that's crisp, clear and precise writing to espouse an opposing point of view! The New York City school system must be proud. Let me guess.... captain of the forensics team?

Like I stated before, i'm just having some fun. Dont take yourself so serious :roll: You are only going to get ulcers that way. Seriously speaking even if I was the dumbest product of NYC's public school system I am smart enough to realize that President Bush is just not a good President. Yet you will defend his wrong doings to the end because you are a die hard Republican. Not to be offensive, and this is just an example but I bet if Bush pissed on your Mother you would defend his actions, and find an excuse for such repulsive behavior. I understand that in sports we stick with our favorite team no matter how much they suck. You can't treat politics the same way. The man has to go. He was never elected by the majority of votes and I see why. It took the Supreme Court's descision to vote him in and even their descision was not unanimous. Why does he and his rich buddies or for that matter Kerry or the rich need a tax break? So they need to borrow money from other contries to pay for it. If anyone needs a tax break is the middle class in America. Do yourself a favor, put aside your love for the party and accept the fact that this man is no good for our country. HE MUST GO :!:

[BABETOOTH]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

You must work within the intelligence community or something so I am sure you have evidence of Iraq's funding of a second 9/11 (just like those WMD's) To tell you the truth so many people in the Middle East hate Bush that in my opinion the U.S. would be safer if he is NOT re-elected...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The looney fest returns. I'm just going to pull up a chair, get a cold one and watch the festivities.

[jmcc]

The looney fest returns. I'm just going to pull up a chair, get a cold one and watch the festivities.

No, it's over. This is all just the thread's corpse twitching.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

I say bomb 'em all. They live like animals over there

[BABETOOTH]

According to WarrenGekko "Osama lives in a rock" LOL so please let us know where it is so we can get the bastard. The fact of the matter is that Osama is recruting potential terrorists left and right more than ever before! Feel safer now???

[Dragonlordfrodo]

No bin lives in a cave, like an animal

[Quackzilla]

No, he is in a safe house.

The fact that he is alive has been verified, he is recruiting and motivating the troops.

He also needs a dialisis machine and a doctor to take care of him.

He is most likely in the Saudi Arabia, a close freind of the US but an even closer freind to Al Qaeda.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Bin needs to be shot along with the rest of those animals

[Quackzilla]

He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.

[jmcc]

He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.

Saddam was turned over to Iraq and is being tried there, last I heard.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Why so they can find him innocent? You know know how our court systems work these days...

[Quackzilla]

The judge and everyone who works with the court was appointed by US officials.

As far as I am concerned it is a western court.

[WarrenGekko]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

You must work within the intelligence community or something so I am sure you have evidence of Iraq's funding of a second 9/11 (just like those WMD's) To tell you the truth so many people in the Middle East hate Bush that in my opinion the U.S. would be safer if he is NOT re-elected...

I don't need to work in the intelligence community to know that Saddam had billions of US dollars horded up. I also know it wasn't being used to feed the Iraqi people. It was to fund terrorists.
However, if you want to wait around for proof, it may be too late.
Thank God Bush isn't waiting around for more proof like more dead bodies on our soil. If Bush did wait and we had another 9/11, the American people would go ballistic.

[WarrenGekko]

I hope this thread ends.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

You won't be happy until they nuke us will you?

[trq]

I say bomb 'em all. They live like animals over there

](*,)

[BABETOOTH]

Should we get back to finding cheap ass games?

[BABETOOTH]

BTW if you stare at my disco ball for a minute...

[BABETOOTH]

... you will vote for K E R R Y !!!

[CTLesq]

He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.

Yeah Bin Laden has repeatedly stated he fears federal court.

Tried in court?

This is a military action.

End of story.

[Lootr2Core]

He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.

Yeah Bin Laden has repeatedly stated he fears federal court.

Tried in court?

This is a military action.

End of story.

was WW2 a military action? hmmmm let me see was there something called the nuremberg trials? hmmmmm it is just escaping me right now..

[CTLesq]

He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.

Yeah Bin Laden has repeatedly stated he fears federal court.

Tried in court?

This is a military action.

End of story.

was WW2 a military action? hmmmm let me see was there something called the nuremberg trials? hmmmmm it is just escaping me right now..

Did you miss the conflict that occured prior to the Nuremberg trials?

Ask yourself what happened to the Nazi's that engaged in combat against American forces?

I believe they were killed.

CTL

[Quackzilla]

The Nazis did not fight to the last man, unlike romanticised war movies.

Many spent the war in prison camps.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I found an interesting article comparing the end of hostilities in German versus Iraq from a Gernam historian

Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer comparable to Göring, Frank and their companions convicted by American, Soviet, British, and French judges in Nürnberg in 1946, will stand trial before an Iraqi court, with, however, guidance taken from the Nürnberg tribunal.

This is hardly the first time that Washington has referred to the American defeat and occupation of Hitler's Germany after World War II as an inspiration for the American occupation of Iraq today. Ever since President Bush decided to invade Iraq, he has again and again looked to the German and Japanese occupation experiences as models, recalling that "...we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany and stood by them while they built representative governments." He has derided skeptics about the chances for democracy in Asia or the Middle East, observing that " the same doubts have [been voiced] at various times about Germans and Africans."

With his historical references, Bush has been reminding Americans how they defeated tyrants like Hitler and Saddam, liberating the tyrants' countries and purging their henchmen. Thereafter in Germany, his supporters recall, America introduced its values to replace the Nazis', democratized the country, embarked on a huge reconstruction program with the Marshall Plan, and presided over the introduction of a free market economy that brought unprecedented prosperity. The result was the establishment of the Federal Republic as a rock of democracy, stability, and peace in the middle of what had been a turbulent region, Central Europe. Likewise, they contend, a liberated Iraq of 2004 can become such a rock in the Middle East, a region just as unsettled.

The Bush administration has been using the story of the war against Hitler and the following occupation, causes which virtually all Americans of the 1940s backed wholeheartedly as noble and moral, to rally Americans of today to support an Iraq war which was justified by dubious arguments and manipulated intelligence reports and an occupation with which growing numbers in the United States are becoming disenchanted.

The supposed parallels between Germany of 1945-1946 and Iraq of 2003-2004 work for the Bush administration with the American public because they create an emotional bond between the infantrymen fighting guerillas in Iraq and their grandfathers of World War II. This was the "greatest generation" who stormed ashore in Normandy, struck across the Rhine, and moved on to the Elbe, a generation of heroes now passing away and soon to be honored by a huge World War II memorial currently being built near Bush's White House. American soldiers near Baghdad today compare themselves, the hazards they face and the stakes for America, to their grandfathers of World War II.

As the occupation of Iraq took a turn for the worse last summer, Bush's national security adviser Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also invoked America's occupation of Germany -- this time as a way of urging Americans to give the administration time to carry out democratization and reconstruction in Iraq. They claimed that between 1945 and 1947 diehard SS "werewolves" kept on killing American occupation soldiers and German mayors who cooperated with them. Rumsfeld argued that things were getting better in Iraq now much more quickly than in Germany in the 1940s. It took until 1948, three years after the war, for a new currency to be established for Western Germany but only a few months until a new currency for postwar Iraq arrived, he explained; it took ten years to build a new German army but a new Iraqi army was already being recruited.

Historians ridicule such Germany-Iraq comparisons as absurd. They see them as either false (there is not a single documented case of an American soldier being murdered by bitter end SS men after Germany's capitulation) or invalid because political and social conditions in Germany fifty-five years ago and Iraq today vary greatly (Germany, to give just one example, was an ethnically homogeneous country, Iraq is deeply divided by religion and ethnicity among Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites). Iraq lacks both democratic traditions and political leaders who remained in the country during Saddam's rule and yet have some experience with democracy. Postwar Germany had at its disposal democratic traditions going back to 1848. Adenauer, Heuss, and most of the fathers of the Grundgesetz (the German constitution) had been active in the politics of the Weimar democracy and had weathered the twelve years of Nazi rule in inner exile at home.

Such objections miss the point for American history and politics. Bush and his administration have appropriated a historical memory now three generations old, transforming it into a myth that powerfully reinforces Americans' image of their country's mission abroad, which Bush has placed at the center of his foreign policy: to advance freedom, democracy, and peace everywhere, especially in the Middle East. Memory of the defeat and occupation of Hitler's Germany summons up a spirit of patriotic achievement of which Americans can be as proud today as they were proud in 1945.

Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980), the great political scientist of power politics, saw in American foreign policy a fourfold pattern of beliefs: America as a model to the world, as a missionary, as a crusader, and as an imperial power with responsibilities all over the globe - primarily in Europe in two world wars and in a cold war, primarily in the Middle East and Southwest Asia now.

The history of the occupation of Germany and the cold war has lent great substance to that credo. While America often failed in efforts to introduce democracy in Latin America or Asia or, for reasons of Realpolitik, tolerated non-democratic practices there and elsewhere, Germany has been the biggest success story, a successful transplanting of the democratic values and political system which the United States cherishes.

It is that inspirational view of postwar Germany, together with the Federal Republic's faithfulness as a cold war ally, which have made it so hard for Bush's Washington to grasp why the government of Gerhard Schröder refused to join the U.S. in using military force to oust another evil dictator, Saddam, and mount a military occupation to do good in Iraq, as American occupiers once did in Germany so long ago.

Robert Gerald Livingston, current fellow at the German Historical Institute and former director of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS), writes from Washington, DC.

Just kidding, I didn't translate it. Here's the original. LINK (http://www.aicgs.org/c/livingston011004.shtml)

The reality is were far ahead on Iraqi reconstruction than we were with the Germans 15 months after the formal surrender.

[Lootr2Core]

Good article but I should hope we are farther ahead in Iraq than Germany, the total devestation that the nation of Germany was in was much greater than Iraq, partly due to the 'smarter bombs' what would it be like rebuiliding Iraq if who cities were bombed to hell (like Dresden or Bremen)

[Lootr2Core]

He needs to be captured and tried in a court of law, that is the only way a terrorist leader like that should be taken out of power, it is humiliating for them to be tried by a western court, just look at Sadam.

Yeah Bin Laden has repeatedly stated he fears federal court.

Tried in court?

This is a military action.

End of story.

was WW2 a military action? hmmmm let me see was there something called the nuremberg trials? hmmmmm it is just escaping me right now..

Did you miss the conflict that occured prior to the Nuremberg trials?

Ask yourself what happened to the Nazi's that engaged in combat against American forces?

I believe they were killed.

CTL

There was a time of military action, then a time for judicial action, then a time for sewing and a tiime for tearing things apart, a time to to tear down and a time to build up, a time for war a time for peace, etc.

[MaxBiaggi3]

The reality is were far ahead on Iraqi reconstruction than we were with the Germans 15 months after the formal surrender.

Excellent. That makes invading a foreign country halfway around the world under false pretenses (WMDs, 9/11 paranoia, etc.) completely alright then. Heck, it only cost us $200+ billion, nearly 1000 US soldiers' lives and the animosity of the rest of the world. The extra 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians who had to die are just gravy. </sarcasm>

[Indiana]

No, he is in a safe house.

The fact that he is alive has been verified, he is recruiting and motivating the troops.

He also needs a dialisis machine and a doctor to take care of him.

He is most likely in the Saudi Arabia, a close freind of the US but an even closer freind to Al Qaeda.

I agree he is probably in Saudi Arabia being protected by his family since they are the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Hell Bush doesn't want to kill him anyway since they are the one's the pay for his and his dad's retirement.

[CaseyRyback]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?

That's doesn't make any sense. Who's warrengekko?


LMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Dragonlordfrodo]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?

That's doesn't make any sense. Who's warrengekko?


LMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And this is coming from someone with a username taken from a bad chopsocky film??

[WarrenGekko]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?

That's doesn't make any sense. Who's warrengekko?


LMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And this is coming from someone with a username taken from a bad chopsocky film??

Whatever. :roll: The character's name from that movie was Gordan Gekko not Warren. Get it straight. Plus that movie had no martial arts

[Dragonlordfrodo]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?

That's doesn't make any sense. Who's warrengekko?


LMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And this is coming from someone with a username taken from a bad chopsocky film??

Whatever. :roll: The character's name from that movie was Gordan Gekko not Warren. Get it straight. Plus that movie had no martial arts

I was talking to Casey ryback

[WarrenGekko]

This country can NOT afford another attack like the one we had on 9/11. We almost lost the airline industry and that would have been truly awful. Now that the threat of Osama has been limited, we are definitely going the right way and taking out Iraq which would have funded a SECOND 9/11. The amount of money spent in Iraq is pennies to what we would lose if we have another grand scale 9/11. I support George Bush in calling out Hussein as he was violating NATO (weapons or not).
I am voting Bush to keep my family safe from Militant Muslims.

With your screen name was their any doubt on who you would vote for?

That's doesn't make any sense. Who's warrengekko?


LMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And this is coming from someone with a username taken from a bad chopsocky film??

Whatever. :roll: The character's name from that movie was Gordan Gekko not Warren. Get it straight. Plus that movie had no martial arts

I was talking to Casey ryback

My bad and my apologies