GRID: Greens, Republicans, Independents and Democrats Coalition with sole purpose to replace Bush

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

Well since we didn't find any WMDs I guess he fulfilled his obligation to destroy them. I can assure you that if the Dub had gotten in front of the American Public and said we needed to overthrow Hussien because he was a brutal Dictator and was suppressing his people that vast majority of Americans would have said no way.

Frankly I don't like being played for a fool by my President and his handlers, especially when it's going to cost so much in lives and money.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

There are a great many people in this world who have the capability to create mayhem who did not live up to expectations.
Because they have not does not mean a war is necessary or desireable.

IMO Bush is one of those, but I do not advocate violence against him. In fact, he has done so more recently than Saddam.

Saddam was not a threat to the US since the Gulf war. We went to war because we could. No other reason. Bush wanted Saddam out. He said it was ALWAYS about regiem change. That I believe

And why did "regime change" become our law? Oh, that's right...because Saddam didn't do what he said he would do to avoid getting his ass handed to him after invading Kuwait.

Anyway - we're off topic again

"Anyone but Bush!!!!!"

CkG

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

That is a good point. If only Saddam had destroyed his massive stockpiles of WMD's .....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well since we didn't find any WMDs I guess he fulfilled his obligation to destroy them.

Unfortunately for your argument - WMDs weren't the only issue he was supposed to address.

Frankly I don't like being played for a fool by my President and his handlers, especially when it's going to cost so much in lives and money.

That's fine, and neither do I. I guess it's all in how you look at it. I don't feel "lied to" because I didn't get myself worked up about WMDs. I didn't only tune in when Bush said "WMDs", but rather listened to everything that was said in the context of knowing our recent history with Saddam.

Meh, to each their own though.

CkG

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

That is a good point. If only Saddam had destroyed his massive stockpiles of WMD's .....

Or maybe you'd find out how good of point it is if you would take time to educate yourself before typing.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

There are a great many people in this world who have the capability to create mayhem who did not live up to expectations.
Because they have not does not mean a war is necessary or desireable.

IMO Bush is one of those, but I do not advocate violence against him. In fact, he has done so more recently than Saddam.

Saddam was not a threat to the US since the Gulf war. We went to war because we could. No other reason. Bush wanted Saddam out. He said it was ALWAYS about regiem change. That I believe

And why did "regime change" become our law? Oh, that's right...because Saddam didn't do what he said he would do to avoid getting his ass handed to him after invading Kuwait.

Anyway - we're off topic again

"Anyone but Bush!!!!!"

CkG

Are you really that satisfied with Bush? Wouldn't you prefer to have another Republican choice, mauybe one that is a real Conservative?Is Bush the best the Republicans can do?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well since we didn't find any WMDs I guess he fulfilled his obligation to destroy them.

Unfortunately for your argument - WMDs weren't the only issue he was supposed to address.

Frankly I don't like being played for a fool by my President and his handlers, especially when it's going to cost so much in lives and money.

That's fine, and neither do I. I guess it's all in how you look at it. I don't feel "lied to" because I didn't get myself worked up about WMDs. I didn't only tune in when Bush said "WMDs", but rather listened to everything that was said in the context of knowing our recent history with Saddam.

Meh, to each their own though.

CkG

Sorry, I forgot to mention direct links to the Al Qaeda Operatives who were responsible for 9/11 (still not proven and very unlikely) and an advanced Nuclear Weapons Program which has since been proven not to be the case. All this plus the WMDs that Bush explained to us that made Hussien a Clear and Present danger to the US..also false!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Are you really that satisfied with Bush? Wouldn't you prefer to have another Republican choice, mauybe one that is a real Conservative?Is Bush the best the Republicans can do?

Would I be happier with a different Republican nominee? Sure...if it was me
But since it's not, and there isn't someone running who fits my ideals and principles as well as Bush, Bush is more than acceptable to me. Now, if there is someone I'm overlooking(highly unlikely) please let me know. Write in candidates don't count - I need someone who wants to win...no just someone who will do it if voted for.

CkG

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well since we didn't find any WMDs I guess he fulfilled his obligation to destroy them.

Unfortunately for your argument - WMDs weren't the only issue he was supposed to address.

Frankly I don't like being played for a fool by my President and his handlers, especially when it's going to cost so much in lives and money.

That's fine, and neither do I. I guess it's all in how you look at it. I don't feel "lied to" because I didn't get myself worked up about WMDs. I didn't only tune in when Bush said "WMDs", but rather listened to everything that was said in the context of knowing our recent history with Saddam.

Meh, to each their own though.

CkG

Sorry, I forgot to mention direct links to the Al Qaeda Operatives who were responsible for 9/11 (still not proven and very unlikely) and an advanced Nuclear Weapons Program which has since been proven not to be the case. All this plus the WMDs that Bush explained to us that made Hussien a Clear and Present danger to the US..also false!

Thanks. I was starting to think all that stuff, and more, had been forgotten.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Sorry, I forgot to mention direct links to the Al Qaeda Operatives who were responsible for 9/11 (still not proven and very unlikely) and an advanced Nuclear Weapons Program which has since been proven not to be the case. All this plus the WMDs that Bush explained to us that made Hussien a Clear and Present danger to the US..also false!

Yep, DANGER perks people's ears - no? The problem though is that then people seem forget that it was prefaced with other things. But again - to each their own. My opinion, just like what you say is your OPINION.

But back to my point - WMDs were NOT the only thing involved in the cease-fire agreement but were a part. So yes, ANY action against Saddam would involve WMDs....even lobbing a few hundred cruise missiles into Iraq was in part because of WMDs. Now even if Saddam not possessing them was proven true(which it has not been) where did they go? Documentation was a key part of the agreement, PLUS there were MANY other things Saddam had to do, which he didn't. So far you have a 1/2 point at best.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

Iraq attacked us of course!

Seriously, I would be interested in a Republican candidate who was pro-national defense, instead of one just deciding to use 9/11 as an excuse. I consider myself neither conservative or liberal. I do not care to use a canned ideology to make up my mind for me as to what is right and wrong. I have aligned myself with Conservatives in the past because we had some common interests. Now I find myself doing so with the Liberals mostly due to Iraq, and all that it implies. I am not overly fond of Kerry, but as far as I am concerned, Bush squandered the good faith of the people (certainly mine), and am sadly not suprised that his supporters will do anything needed to defend him, just as those of Clinton did for him.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Sorry, I forgot to mention direct links to the Al Qaeda Operatives who were responsible for 9/11 (still not proven and very unlikely) and an advanced Nuclear Weapons Program which has since been proven not to be the case. All this plus the WMDs that Bush explained to us that made Hussien a Clear and Present danger to the US..also false!

Yep, DANGER perks people's ears - no? The problem though is that then people seem forget that it was prefaced with other things. But again - to each their own. My opinion, just like what you say is your OPINION.

But back to my point - WMDs were NOT the only thing involved in the cease-fire agreement but were a part. So yes, ANY action against Saddam would involve WMDs....even lobbing a few hundred cruise missiles into Iraq was in part because of WMDs. Now even if Saddam not possessing them was proven true(which it has not been) where did they go? Documentation was a key part of the agreement, PLUS there were MANY other things Saddam had to do, which he didn't. So far you have a 1/2 point at best.

CkG

And a Major Police action that is draining our wallets not to mention killing and maiming hundreds of American Soldiers. Not worth it IMO.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Sorry, I forgot to mention direct links to the Al Qaeda Operatives who were responsible for 9/11 (still not proven and very unlikely) and an advanced Nuclear Weapons Program which has since been proven not to be the case. All this plus the WMDs that Bush explained to us that made Hussien a Clear and Present danger to the US..also false!

Yep, DANGER perks people's ears - no? The problem though is that then people seem forget that it was prefaced with other things. But again - to each their own. My opinion, just like what you say is your OPINION.

But back to my point - WMDs were NOT the only thing involved in the cease-fire agreement but were a part. So yes, ANY action against Saddam would involve WMDs....even lobbing a few hundred cruise missiles into Iraq was in part because of WMDs. Now even if Saddam not possessing them was proven true(which it has not been) where did they go? Documentation was a key part of the agreement, PLUS there were MANY other things Saddam had to do, which he didn't. So far you have a 1/2 point at best.

CkG

That is not how it was sold. If he has 1/2 a point, you have none.

Looking back, what did Saddam have IN FACT that REQUIRED that we go to war NOW? No "maybes". No "could have"

What direct factual threat at this time required the US to attack?

None.

We could have gone on till he died of old age, and if we had the discipline and smarts to realize that someone sticking out their tongues was no threat to us.

Truth is Bush is too weak a man to use anything other than the force of arms to resolve problems like this.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

That is a good point. If only Saddam had destroyed his massive stockpiles of WMD's .....

Or maybe you'd find out how good of point it is if you would take time to educate yourself before typing.

CkG

Woot! CkG's going to tell us the story of missing documentation. There is a great reason to go to war. Not. Nobody honestly cared about Saddam's clerical skills. The WMD's mattered. The rest was an excuse.

You are right about one thing. Dubya is a good match for your ideals and principles.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

That is a good point. If only Saddam had destroyed his massive stockpiles of WMD's .....

Or maybe you'd find out how good of point it is if you would take time to educate yourself before typing.

CkG

Woot! CkG's going to tell us the story of missing documentation. There is a great reason to go to war. Not. Nobody honestly cared about Saddam's clerical skills. The WMD's mattered. The rest was an excuse.

You are right about one thing. Dubya is a good match for your ideals and principles.

Have you actually read the cease-fire terms? From your posts - I don't think you have...but if you have read them - how can you possibly post what you did?

CkG

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

How it happened? 19 guys hijacked some planes and used them as meatball cruise misslles. Why did it happen? To make a point. Years and years of being focked with will radicalize even the tamest of people. If another country interfered in OUR affairs to the degree with do others we'd be just as pissed, if not moreso. How's that? Not good enough? Read the sordid history of Western involvement in the middle-east.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

How it happened? 19 guys hijacked some planes and used them as meatball cruise misslles. Why did it happen? To make a point. Years and years of being focked with will radicalize even the tamest of people. If another country interfered in OUR affairs to the degree with do others we'd be just as pissed, if not moreso. How's that? Not good enough? Read the sordid history of Western involvement in the middle-east.

Right...

It's always the "west's" fault. Yep, if we would have just hugged them instead....

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

How it happened? 19 guys hijacked some planes and used them as meatball cruise misslles. Why did it happen? To make a point. Years and years of being focked with will radicalize even the tamest of people. If another country interfered in OUR affairs to the degree with do others we'd be just as pissed, if not moreso. How's that? Not good enough? Read the sordid history of Western involvement in the middle-east.

Right...

It's always the "west's" fault. Yep, if we would have just hugged them instead....

CkG

Like we "hugged" Iran in 1953?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

How it happened? 19 guys hijacked some planes and used them as meatball cruise misslles. Why did it happen? To make a point. Years and years of being focked with will radicalize even the tamest of people. If another country interfered in OUR affairs to the degree with do others we'd be just as pissed, if not moreso. How's that? Not good enough? Read the sordid history of Western involvement in the middle-east.

Right...

It's always the "west's" fault. Yep, if we would have just hugged them instead....

CkG

Like we "hugged" Iran in 1953?

Right on target.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

How it happened? 19 guys hijacked some planes and used them as meatball cruise misslles. Why did it happen? To make a point. Years and years of being focked with will radicalize even the tamest of people. If another country interfered in OUR affairs to the degree with do others we'd be just as pissed, if not moreso. How's that? Not good enough? Read the sordid history of Western involvement in the middle-east.

Right...

It's always the "west's" fault. Yep, if we would have just hugged them instead....

CkG

Like we "hugged" Iran in 1953?

You call that a "hug"? I don't.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When they mount a candidate that is pro-national defense then they will have my vote.

We have the biggest stockpile of weapons on the planet and the only tangible threat to us is a direct outgrowth of our own arrogance and stupidity. Why not work on that dichotomy before we start a new and horribly more expensive military build-up?

explain how 9-11 happened, ohh sagacious and wise one

How it happened? 19 guys hijacked some planes and used them as meatball cruise misslles. Why did it happen? To make a point. Years and years of being focked with will radicalize even the tamest of people. If another country interfered in OUR affairs to the degree with do others we'd be just as pissed, if not moreso. How's that? Not good enough? Read the sordid history of Western involvement in the middle-east.

Right...

It's always the "west's" fault. Yep, if we would have just hugged them instead....

CkG

Like we "hugged" Iran in 1953?

You call that a "hug"? I don't.

CkG

Nope, that's why I like quotes around the word.

While it is true the terrorists are responsible for their actions, so are we. We fail to take ownership of responsibility for the causation of much of what drives terrorists.

Why do they hate us? The standard Bushoid answer is "They hate Democracy". It is far more complicated though. A great deal of it is due to past US involvements in the region. That is curiously omitted in most commentaries.

Why did 9/11 happen? For a great many reasons, and some of them are due to our actions. 1953 was one. Our support of dictators when it suits us (saddam in the fight with Iran), then the hypocracy of claiming moral high ground when we have used him up and he becomes a liability. The people there see it, and wonder why Saddam was so good then, and so bad now. They figure that it was in the best interest of the US. They are right. That gives an excuse to support nuts like Bin Laden (who represents the real threat to us).

Whenever we meddle in internal affairs of other nations, it comes back and bites us in the ass like it did the Brits a hundred years or so ago.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

"That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations."

Just like all the other Dictators around the world that REALLY have Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY



[That's fine that you hold that opinion that the war wasn't "supportable" and arrogant. I don't feel it was either and I have plenty to back that up. Many here seem to easily forget that it was Saddam who was supposed to comply with the terms set forth in the cease-fire agreement. He did not do so. Us finishing the job since he did not comply is not arrogant at all and is supported by years of defiance.


CkG

Why did the Dub feel it was necessary to decieve the American Public to support his excellent adventure in Iraq the way he did instead of just coming out and saying that we needed to finish what we started back during his Father's administration? Do you think it was because he knew he wouldn't get the public support he needed to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it possibly be that his Neocon Handlers believed that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and successful beginning nof the war against Al Qaeda that maybe the Americans flushed with Patriotism along with Bushes favorable ratings they knew that this was an opportunity for them to exercise their main agenda and that given time they might not ever have such an opportunity again?

That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations. We could speculate all day about this or that, but the one thing that is FACT - is that Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations of the cease-fire terms. NO ONE can argue with that - NO ONE.

CkG

"That could be, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam did NOT even come close to fulfilling his obligations."

Just like all the other Dictators around the world that REALLY have Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

You think you presented a good question but it was founded on a false premise. I suggest you go over by Ldir and actually READ.

CkG

 

[alchemize]

You know what? I REALLY want to kick your ass, you smarmy sack of sh1t. Consider this my last RESPONSE to your crap

Note to self: Hardwarrior has a thin skin and is easy to provoke.