A great day for George Bush!

[DustyBottoms]

heh..heh.. ha.. ha.. he.. he.. Saddam gone.. Dean surrenders .. :lol :lol :lol

[aclu14]

I KNEW he wasn't dead!

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
A great day for George Bush!

I think it is more like a great day for our service men and women over there. The only thing I saw Bush armed with was a loaded turkey :lol

[w1che]

They get old Ben now & I will be happy... That is one terrorist they have to pull out all stops to get... What ever it takes...

[Ateo]

Originally posted by King Solomon


I think it is more like a great day for our service men and women over there. The only thing I saw Bush armed with was a loaded turkey :lol
Don't forget the Iraqi people. :)

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Don't forget the Iraqi people. :)

I see I gotta work on my priorities! :lol :lol

I am happy for the entire free world! :clap

[sinecure]

Originally posted by w1che
They get old Ben now & I will be happy... That is one terrorist they have to pull out all stops to get... What ever it takes...

They will. They took a lot of our Special Forces people out of Af'stan and assigned them to help find Saddam... figuring that he was the more important target at the moment.

Now they'll likely re-assign those guys back to looking for OBL.

They'll find him, too. :)

[jstnomega]

Al Gore's timing must be the envy of every comedian that ever tried to tell a joke.

[Sjax]

Originally posted by sinecure
They'll find him, too. :)
They might. I have to say that I didn't think they would find Saddam and I don't think they will find OBL. Now they have proved me wrong in one case, so let's see if they will prove me wrong in the other one as well.

A good day for the iraqi people, but I don't think it is as important as some people try to make it. It is important, yes, but it is not world history. It would have been it they had got him while he was still in power. Now he is not a powerfull dictator, only a dirty criminal, and there is a lot of those around.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by w1che
They get old Ben now & I will be happy... That is one terrorist they have to pull out all stops to get... What ever it takes...

Wasn't he a dictator?

[Ateo]

Will the arrest of Saddam quell the attacks by insurgents? That's the real question. If so, good deal. If not, then this...

A great day for George Bush!

...is just that.

A great day does not a re-election make.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Will the arrest of Saddam quell the attacks by insurgents? That's the real question.

No, and it won't be a cure for the common cold or cancer. Probably won't do much to alleviate the habitat plight of the Canadian Cross-Billed Chickadee, either. :rolleyes:... but it surely will help the average Iraqi sleep better.

A great day does not a re-election make.

Yeah.... but string together a dozen or so "great days" and the you've got something!!:clap :clap

[Serendipity]

It's great news, of course :) Now let's see what happens in Iraq.

[w1che]

Quote from TIG... A great day does not a re-election make.
>>>>>>>>

You see the above from Tig & you see the half hearted "That's great news" from the Dems running for President and you just know they really hate any victory we have in Iraq.. That group must be stopped if you care anything about your kids & their future for a free world...

[Serendipity]

So, what is going to happen to Saddam now? As I understand it, currently he's a PoW, held by the US. He can't stay that way, of course. So should he stand trial by an Iraqi tribunal (once power has properly been handed to the Iraqi people), an independent international tribunal, a UN tribunal, or some other setup?

[Shadaik]

Originally posted by sinecure


They will. They took a lot of our Special Forces people out of Af'stan and assigned them to help find Saddam... figuring that he was the more important target at the moment.

Now they'll likely re-assign those guys back to looking for OBL.

They'll find him, too. :)
Yeah, sure. And chances are, he's sitting on top of Saddam's nukes having breakfast when they get him.

Besides, if they would have waited another few days Saddam could have got under cover under the name "Santa Hus.. - er, Clause" - gee, what a beard. *g*

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Serendipity
So, what is going to happen to Saddam now? As I understand it, currently he's a PoW, held by the US. He can't stay that way, of course. So should he stand trial by an Iraqi tribunal (once power has properly been handed to the Iraqi people), an independent international tribunal, a UN tribunal, or some other setup?

I hope that he stands before and is judged by the Iraqi people. It would be a good shot in the arm for the beginning of their new free democracy.


[Tig}Will the arrest of Saddam quell the attacks by insurgents? That's the real question. :lol :lol :lol

Another one for you Tig...

<Pessimist> A prophet of misfortune or disaster: Cassandra, doomsayer, worrywart. See hope/despair.

Synonym - Naysayer, Cynic, Gloomy Gus, Worrywart, Wet Blanket

noun despair

adjective despondent, gloomy, hopeless (2)

verb despair

I know this is more bad news to you but - The early signs are already positive. The Iraqi middle class has been coming forward with "a treasure trove" of information for the coalition now that they never have to fear retribution from Saddam.

More bad news - The economy has jumped world-wide. :p

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
Quote from TIG... A great day does not a re-election make.
>>>>>>>>

You see the above from Tig & you see the half hearted "That's great news" from the Dems running for President and you just know they really hate any victory we have in Iraq.. That group must be stopped if you care anything about your kids & their future for a free world...
What you're seeing in posts from America-haters like me is a reaction to the politicization by the right of this event (see thread title).

A job nicely done by our military; a great day for the Iraqi people.

Bush? He's basically sitting in the oval office enjoying the political benefits and spouting sound bites.

[w1che]

Naw what we're seeing in your post Tig is your A*s burning because something good came out of Iraq.. What should Bush have done? Not say anything or just say what you libs wanted to hear.. Give us a break on your jackboot liberal lines will ya.. :rolleyes:

[Ateo]

Wunch, Bush & co have a history of politicizing, hypocrisy, deception, lying, spinning, etc. Sorry if I'm a little bit cynical. What should Bush have done? Doesn't matter. What Bush does is irrelevent to me at this point. He's just the figurehead. :)

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

What you're seeing in posts from America-haters like me is a reaction to the politicization by the right of this event (see thread title).

A job nicely done by our military; a great day for the Iraqi people.

Bush? He's basically sitting in the oval office enjoying the political benefits and spouting sound bites.

I don't know there, Tig.... do you suppose our military would be over there if GWB hadn't SENT them???

Wasn't just a couple of days ago that you were castiigating GWB for sending the GI's over there...?

GWB gets the negative effect, he also gets the positive effect. Which way do you want it?

You're just all bent outta shape 'cause it's ending-up aces-and-eights for GWB.... who's going to be the Prez for the next 4 years!!

Some days you're the windshield, some days you're the bug. These are your "bug" days. :p :wave :wave

He may be a "just a figurehead" to you, but he's a pretty damn good leader for the MAJORITY of us...:lol

[Ateo]

Bush did send the military over, yes. But he told us he had to do it because otherwise there would be a big deadly "mushroom cloud". The admin also said there were tons of bio-weapons, mobile labs, remote control planes, etc etc. Rumsy even said he knew where the WMDs were!

That's the problem I have. Saddam is gone. Good. But that doesn't make up for the crap Bush & co has pulled. I think that's what gets your goat. :wink

[jstnomega]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Bush did send the military over, yes. But he told us he had to do it because otherwise there would be a big deadly "mushroom cloud". The admin also said there were tons of bio-weapons, mobile labs, remote control planes, etc etc. Rumsy even said he knew where the WMDs were!

Come on tig. You continue to focus on that issue like it was the only issue. He (GW) took it to them over there to prevent them fr taking it to us here. Don't you see that? Or do you just refuse to credit him for that decision? If the Dem's had been in power on 09/11, Saddham would still be in power.

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by sinecure
...do you suppose our military would be over there if GWB hadn't SENT them???...

Do you suppose we may have caught the real problem child, Osama bin Laden, by now if we would have kept the focus on Afganastan instead of aberating our way into Iraq on a bunch of lies and misinformation?

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
What should Bush have done? Doesn't matter. What Bush does is irrelevent to me at this point. He's just the figurehead. :)
So... what GWB does is irrelevant to you... it really doesn't matter, huh?

I have a feeling you are going to see the above quote from your post several more times in the coming months!!! :lol :lol :lol :lol :wave

Then KS sticks out his lower lip and petulantly asks: Do you suppose we may have caught the real problem child, Osama bin Laden, by now if we would have kept the focus on Afganastan instead of aberating our way into Iraq on a bunch of lies and misinformation?

Well... possibly. Osama, like Saddam and even Khaddafi had ducked his head into his shell. We had sufficient Af'stan military resources "in country" to keep it there. Saddam was proclaiming himself the biggest dog in the pound, as well as claiming he had the longest, sharpest teeth. The UN bought it, out allies bought it, and the US bought it as well. [remember, our area humint resources were, in the main, dissolved and disassociated by Clinton.] There was apparently no equally-reliable information to the contrary, so we went after Saddam and Co.

With the increased manpower now available to focus on him, OBL's days are numbered. He's next.

I must confess, KS, you had me running to the dictionary with your word "aberating". Certainly sounds as though it should be an English word... but I couldn't find it. Care to define it for me?
:lol :lol

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by sinecure

I must confess, KS, you had me running to the dictionary with your word "aberating". Certainly sounds as though it should be an English word... but I couldn't find it. Care to define it for me?
:lol :lol

A slight misspell on my part. Aberration: 1. deviation from what is common, normal, or right. 2. deviation from truth or moral rectitude...etc

[w1che]

Heard any tapes from Osama bin Laden lately.. Wouldn't you think if he was able to he would be turning out a tape about once a week.. I find that strange.. To me it means the rat is in a very deep hole or he is no longer with us.. Could be we want to save the info on OBL until Oct. 04... :p

[Ateo]

Originally posted by jstnomega


Come on tig. You continue to focus on that issue like it was the only issue. He (GW) took it to them over there to prevent them fr taking it to us here. Don't you see that? Or do you just refuse to credit him for that decision? If the Dem's had been in power on 09/11, Saddham would still be in power.
Yes, I know about the "flypaper theory", and I think it's just as full of holes as everything else.

"We are fighting them there, so that we don't have to fight them here". What does that even mean? Have the terrorists who would have otherwise snuck into the US to pull off another 9/11 now decided to switch gears and travel to Iraq instead to take potshots at our troops? That's such an incredibly goofy argument. If Al Qaeda in fact has both an "Iraq faction" and an "Invade the US and wreak havok" faction, fighting the few they send to Iraq has NO EFFECT on the ones who are intent on coming here and blowing us up (or our allies). Do you really think that our presence in Iraq is going to lessen the chances of another 9/11?

Tell me: how does the flypaper theory insure (or even lessen the possibility) that terrorists won't come over here and blow us up again?

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

... Do you really think that our presence in Iraq is going to lessen the chances of another 9/11?

Tell me: how does the flypaper theory insure (or even lessen the possibility) that terrorists won't come over here and blow us up again?

You surely seem intent on getting some kind of "guarantee" here, Tig. It's been a common theme in several of your posts. I say "If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster." But undoubtedly that won't satisfy you... so-----

YOU tell ME what "guarantee" Slick Willie left us.

YOU tell ME what Algore would have done to ensure our safety.

YOU tell ME what reasonably should've been done by the Prez after 9-11.

YOU tell ME what the all-knowing, all-seeing, got-the-answers-right-here Tigster would've done for the Nation.

I'll be taking notes. :luck

[jstnomega]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Yes, I know about the "flypaper theory", and I think it's just as full of holes as everything else.

tig, Just yesterday, that bastion of reasoned clamness, NPR (National Commie Radio) asserted that in his 34 yr reign of terror Hussein/Iraq raked in/earned somewhere between 300 & 400 billion dollars. That's a lot of doreme.

WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO?????????

He sloughed off how much cash to what world leaders for what purpose?

Stand by for news. Film at eleven.

[Ateo]

Sin, now you're misrepresenting what I said. I asked for no guarantee. Again, simply:

how does the flypaper theory insure (or even lessen the possibility) that terrorists won't come over here and blow us up again?

You guys seem to think this is a genius move by Bush. That by "taking the fight to the terrorists", it's going to make us more secure. I'm simply asking for some elaboration. How will this significantly improve the security of Americans?

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Sin, now you're misrepresenting what I said. I asked for no guarantee. Again, simply:

how does the flypaper theory insure (or even lessen the possibility) that terrorists won't come over here and blow us up again?

You guys seem to think this is a genius move by Bush. That by "taking the fight to the terrorists", it's going to make us more secure. I'm simply asking for some elaboration. How will this significantly improve the security of Americans?

We have to fight terrorism the same way you eat an elephant. One bite at a time. :) Each bite is one less possible terrorist. In this case, we decided to go out to eat! :lol

[sinecure]

And here, Tig, is something else for you to chew on whilst you digest DB's elephant... :lol

This "War on Terror" is like no other military campaign in which the US has been engaged. We are learning as we go here. Mistakes will be made and learned from, but successes will likewise be capitalized upon. For the most part, the guys are having to write the manual as they go along.

As for your denial that you are insisting on some sort of preordained outcome from the folks who are "steering the boat," well, just look back at the subject and tone of your posts here... it surely seemed to me that you wanted some sort of guarantee. :confused

If I'm mistaken, then tell me what it is that you DO want from this current Administration. Perhaps that'll clear it all right up. :)

[Ateo]

How about cutting the pointless (although entertaining) metaphors, and the "answering-a-question-with-a-question-as-a-means-of-avoiding-having-to-answer-a-question" tactic, and just answer my freakin' question.

Please. :)

how does the flypaper theory insure (or even lessen the possibility) that terrorists won't come over here and blow us up again?

Sin, to quote you--addressing me--from another thread:YOU are the one asserting a positive...therefore--- it's up to YOU to prove your hypothesis.

[sinecure]

Well.... I suppose we can remind you of the old adage: "When you're up to your keister in alligators, it's difficult to remember that you are there to drain the swamp."

Keeping the\ enemy off-balance, their communications disrupted and chain of command broken .... well, Tig... that's a good thing when you're fighting a war.

Actually, I haven't heard of a "flypaper" theory, and I'm just going on what it sounds like it would be.

Sketch it out for me.

[Ateo]

http://www.gopusa.com/austinbay/ab_0828.shtml

He calls it a "flypaper strategy", but same thing. Essentially it's the widely-touted idea that the Iraq war makes us more secure because we are fighting the terrorists over there, instead of over here. Which makes no sense.

[Serendipity]

This "War on Terror" is like no other military campaign in which the US has been engaged. We are learning as we go here. Mistakes will be made and learned from, but successes will likewise be capitalized upon. For the most part, the guys are having to write the manual as they go along.If they haven't yet worked out that killing and imprisoning terrorists is one of the best and fastest ways to engender more terrorists, then the authors of the manual have made their first big mistake. Notice that Islamic suicide bombers these days are not just males, some are well-educated middle-class women, schoolteachers and suchlike, who have become radicalised by circumstance. I am not advocating appeasement (I can't envisage how that would work), and I am not offering any other solution. I am merely saying that killing terrorists is not a very effective way to eliminate terrorism.

[sinecure]

I guess I hadn't heard of Austin Bay before. \shrug/ However-- he summs it up nicely with this statement: On 9/11, Al Qaeda chose the battlefields: New York and Washington. American leaders have decided it's better to fight terrorists "over there" than "over here." So our soldiers slug it out in the Sunni Triangle instead of Seattle. U.S. and British soldiers, and increasingly Iraqi police, are engaged in this fight. It's tough. In eight to 10 months, we'll know if it worked. [emphasis mine]

Like I wrote somewhere else-- they are writing the manual as they go over there... it's all a new experience.

So once again, Tig wants some sort of guarantee?... :rolleyes:

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Serendipity
If they haven't yet worked out that killing and imprisoning terrorists is one of the best and fastest ways to engender more terrorists, then the authors of the manual have made their first big mistake. Notice that Islamic suicide bombers these days are not just males, some are well-educated middle-class women, schoolteachers and suchlike, who have become radicalised by circumstance. I am not advocating appeasement (I can't envisage how that would work), and I am not offering any other solution. I am merely saying that killing terrorists is not a very effective way to eliminate terrorism.

Interesting point.... but a little "thin" in places.

This is a war against an enemy with deep religious/political feelings... getting politics homoginized with your religion is generally not a good thing.

Yes their suicide bombers are apparently from all walks of life.... so were the members of Jonestown, Branch Davidians, the comet-cult [name escapes me at the moment], and a handfull of other suicide cults. I'm not so certain that all [or even most] of these people were "radicalized by circumstances..." Are you?

Simply "killing terrorists"-- while a fairly certain method of assuring that the dead terrorists will "terror" no more-- doesn't seem to be the main long-term objective here.

We have hopes for the subjugated peoples.

[Ateo]

(Sin: I chose that link at random, to provide you with a definition. I don't know who Austin Bay is either :) )

1) The evidence that our presence is going to draw all the terrorists into Iraq (so we can kill them) is negligible. There may be some foreign fighters. Big deal. Our main foe at the moment is Saddam loyalists, insurgents. Iraqis who don't want us there.

2) The campaign in Iraq may draw some foreign fighters/terrorists in to take some shots at us. Fine. What about the true majority of dangerous terrorists in other parts of the world? Shouldn't we be focusing our energy and resources on them, instead of the piddly number in Iraq (and the insurgents who are presently draining us)? I'm not saying we should withdraw from Iraq--too late for that now. I'm just arguing that this "flypaper" idea is stupid. It makes no sense. It's just another "afterthought justification" drummed up by the neo-cons to divert attention away from the fact that our original reasons for invading were all false.

The war was waged on the Bush admin's claims of an immediate threat--but there was no immediate threat. So the war was not necessary. We invaded pre-emptively based on nothing. So instead of being adult and admitting we screwed up, we are now creating latter-day theories about why the war is logical. That don't fly.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort

<snip>
[B The campaign in Iraq may draw some foreign fighters/terrorists in to take some shots at us. Fine. What about the true majority of dangerous terrorists in other parts of the world? Shouldn't we be focusing our energy and resources on them, instead of the piddly number in Iraq (and the insurgents who are presently draining us)? I'm not saying we should withdraw from Iraq--too late for that now. I'm just arguing that this "flypaper" idea is stupid. It makes no sense. It's just another "afterthought justification" drummed up by the neo-cons to divert attention away from the fact that our original reasons for invading were all false.
<snip>

[/B]

You want a guarantee? I'll give you one. I guarantee that we are not expending all of our efforts in Iraq. To think so is ludicrous.
Our network is based on specialists for each country. They are not generic agents we are able to shift around the world. They are all fully engaged everywhere looking for terrorists.

My guess is that you have not been receiving their top secret accomplishment reports lately. :lol

[w1che]

Quote from Sir- Dip... If they haven't yet worked out that killing and imprisoning terrorists is one of the best and fastest ways to engender more terrorists
>>>>>>>>.

Well & good but that's like saying if we hadn't went after Japan & Germany in WW2 they wouldn't have had so many people in the military.. If you can't kill them & you can't lock them up, then I guess the only thing left is to build a wall around America & tell the rest of the world "Your on your own." You do what you have to do in any war.. You kill them or they kill you..

Well Tigger at least it's good to see that at last you're saying there MAY be foreign terrorist in Iraq.. What do you think has kept you safe for over two years after 9/11? I terrorist have been blowing the crap out of other countries but your still able to type away... :confused

[sinecure]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
My guess is that you have not been receiving their top secret accomplishment reports lately. :lol

We keep Tig out of "the loop" and frisk him for weaponsofmassdestruction when he shows up at the meetings. So far we haven't found any. :wink

Tig calms down from his hissy-fit enough to place his arms akimbo and, eyes all a-sparkle, demand:

1) The evidence that our presence is going to draw ALL the terrorists into Iraq (so we can kill them) is negligible. There may be some foreign fighters. Big deal. Our main foe at the moment is Saddam loyalists, insurgents. Iraqis who don't want us there.


[italics mine]

No, I'm sure we have no hopes of drawing ALL terrorists into Iraq so that we may dispatch them. Is that what you're actually thinking?

You never even played "army" with the other kids when you were a youngster, did you, Tig?? :p :lol :lol :lol

[Serendipity]

Yes their suicide bombers are apparently from all walks of life.... so were the members of Jonestown, Branch Davidians, the comet-cult [name escapes me at the moment], and a handfull of other suicide cults. I'm not so certain that all [or even most] of these people were "radicalized by circumstances..." Are you?
I KNOW this happens. Not every Islamic terrorist is thinking of those virgins... All or even most? I can't say, but the phenomenon I described happens. It would be very foolish to ignore the emphasis Musims place on the importance of family. This works in good ways and bad.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Serendipity
I KNOW this happens. Not every Islamic terrorist is thinking of those virgins... All or even most? I can't say, but the phenomenon I described happens. It would be very foolish to ignore the emphasis Musims place on the importance of family. This works in good ways and bad.

Well, I'd wager that not all Islamic terrorists are bent on suicide, but if I read the Koran correctly, they have a divine commandment to take your infidel a$s out of the picture if you won't convert!

'Dipity, How does the Muslim emphasis on family differ from anybody else's emphasis on "family"? and how does "it" [?] work in good and bad ways?

The smoke you are generating is obscuring your mirrors here! :p :wave

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
No, I'm sure we have no hopes of drawing ALL terrorists into Iraq so that we may dispatch them. Is that what you're actually thinking?No. Substitute "significant numbers". I was being slightly sarcastic, generalizing. And yes, I played army, with other kids and with miniature facsimiles (army men). In fact my GI Joe--the one who fell out of a tree--- died in action.

DB,
You want a guarantee? I'll give you one. I guarantee that we are not expending all of our efforts in Iraq. To think so is ludicrous. True, not all of our efforts are being expended. But most of our military structure is focused there. And there is where Bush is trying to focus the nation's attention.

I think for awhile, once it became clear there were no WMDs, no nuke program, no bio's, the Bush admin was stumbling, panicking. they were doing a lot of throat-clearing and "umm"-ing, and blame deflecting when questioned by the press. But now they've hit upon a few passable post-war justification talking points, which are obviously a strategy to make people forget about the fact that the war was based on empty facts and manipulative spin.

The flypaper strategy may or may not be a legitimate argument (I think it's BS personally). Who knows? It's just a theory. And this idea that we can invade a country on the basis of pre-emption, be wrong about it, then make up theories about why we were actually right--after the fact--is not acceptable. Yeah, we're making it up as we go along...maybe that's the problem.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort
DB,
True, not all of our efforts are being expended. But most of our military structure is focused there. And there is where Bush is trying to focus the nation's attention.

Are you suggesting that we spread them around to include other countries? Should we just leave now and let what happens happen?
I would really like your opinion on this issue.

I think for awhile, once it became clear there were no WMDs, no nuke program, no bio's, the Bush admin was stumbling, panicking. they were doing a lot of throat-clearing and "umm"-ing, and blame deflecting when questioned by the press. But now they've hit upon a few passable post-war justification talking points, which are obviously a strategy to make people forget about the fact that the war was based on empty facts and manipulative spin.

Listen to yourself. You are not arguing about the war. You are just blasting the administration.

The flypaper strategy may or may not be a legitimate argument (I think it's BS personally). Who knows? It's just a theory. And this idea that we can invade a country on the basis of pre-emption, be wrong about it, then make up theories about why we were actually right--after the fact--is not acceptable. Yeah, we're making it up as we go along...[b]maybe that's the problem.

I do not recall Bush stating anything about flypaper. This thread is the first time I have heard it mentioned. I do recall a nearly unanimous congress blessing the use of force if the president felt it was necessary. I do recall the UN granting severe consequences if Saddam did not allow unfettered inspections and full disclosure of his military capability.

Now is not the time to cut and run. Remember the Iraqi people. We now owe it to them to stay and finish the job.

[weldordave]

Originally posted by tigsnort

What you're seeing in posts from America-haters like me
If you hate America, why do you stay here in it and in one of the more socialist states? In case your answer is "I don't like America under it's present condition", why don't you leave and come back when the climate suits you? You are free to do that. I'm sure a man of your many talents can excell in any country that you do not hate. Uh, which countries do you not hate? Good. Then go to any one of them. This is not an "America, Love it or Leave it" stance. In the modern world you do have a choice as to where you want to call home. As many people such as yourself that "hate" America there are probably 100 times that number of foreigners that want to come here and be Americans. Pick a country and we'll see if the US can do a direct swap...Tig for someone else.

[weldordave]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Wunch, Bush & co have a history of politicizing, hypocrisy, deception, lying, spinning, etc. Sorry if I'm a little bit cynical. What should Bush have done? Doesn't matter. What Bush does is irrelevent to me at this point. He's just the figurehead. :)
Figurehead? Not quite. He appoints alot of people to conduct daily business. Including military business. Do you think Tommy Franks was elected to lead the effort in the Mid. East? An advisor said "Hey, I know the perfect guy to pull this off." Bush puts it on the table, a decision is made. Had it gone miserably wrong it would equally be Bush's fault. The President makes decisions on day to day business of the US, albiet with considerable advise from those he has gathered around him, as with all presidents. A figurehead is like Euro royalty. Exists with no function but to consume oxygen and produce carbon monoxide.

[weldordave]

Originally posted by sinecure


I don't know there, Tig.... do you suppose our military would be over there if GWB hadn't SENT them???

Wasn't just a couple of days ago that you were castiigating GWB for sending the GI's over there...?

GWB gets the negative effect, he also gets the positive effect. Which way do you want it?

You're just all bent outta shape 'cause it's ending-up aces-and-eights for GWB.... who's going to be the Prez for the next 4 years!!

Some days you're the windshield, some days you're the bug. These are your "bug" days. :p :wave :wave

He may be a "just a figurehead" to you, but he's a pretty damn good leader for the MAJORITY of us...:lol
Careful Sin. Aces & 8's are the "Dead Man's Hand". Wild Bill, Deadwood, Jack McCall...?:wave

[weldordave]

Originally posted by sinecure

So... what GWB does is irrelevant to you... it really doesn't matter, huh?

I have a feeling you are going to see the above quote from your post several more times in the coming months!!! :lol :lol :lol :lol :wave

Then KS sticks out his lower lip and petulantly asks:

Well... possibly. Osama, like Saddam and even Khaddafi had ducked his head into his shell. We had sufficient Af'stan military resources "in country" to keep it there. Saddam was proclaiming himself the biggest dog in the pound, as well as claiming he had the longest, sharpest teeth. The UN bought it, out allies bought it, and the US bought it as well. [remember, our area humint resources were, in the main, dissolved and disassociated by Clinton.] There was apparently no equally-reliable information to the contrary, so we went after Saddam and Co.

With the increased manpower now available to focus on him, OBL's days are numbered. He's next.

I must confess, KS, you had me running to the dictionary with your word "aberating". Certainly sounds as though it should be an English word... but I couldn't find it. Care to define it for me?
:lol :lol
Sin, were you ever a spook in the military, HUMINT or otherwise? Just curious.:wink

[weldordave]

Originally posted by Serendipity
If they haven't yet worked out that killing and imprisoning terrorists is one of the best and fastest ways to engender more terrorists, then the authors of the manual have made their first big mistake. Notice that Islamic suicide bombers these days are not just males, some are well-educated middle-class women, schoolteachers and suchlike, who have become radicalised by circumstance. I am not advocating appeasement (I can't envisage how that would work), and I am not offering any other solution. I am merely saying that killing terrorists is not a very effective way to eliminate terrorism.
And now those people see the person or people who ask them to blow themselves up in the name of jihad hiding in holes like rodents and giving up without the medical need of even a band-aid. What an example. Maybe now many would-be jihadist self destructing people will ask themselves one question. "Why should I blow myself up when our leaders give up like dogs rolling over. Their message and their actions do not link." Which leads to the ultimate question. Why hasn't the children of Arafat blown themselves up in the name of their father and cause? As time goes by the Islamic people will see the hypocrosy of their "leaders". They're not stupid, just religious. Islams historically get wrapped up in the seeming finality of events and fail to see that there is a tomarrow.

[Ateo]

Dusty:
Are you suggesting that we spread (the military) around to include other countries? Should we just leave (Iraq) now and let what happens happen?
I would really like your opinion on this issue.Look at my 4th reply on page 3 of this thread, where I said:Shouldn't we be focusing our energy and resources on (terrorists worldwide), instead of the piddly number in Iraq (and the insurgents who are presently draining us)? I'm not saying we should withdraw from Iraq--too late for that now. I'm just arguing that this "flypaper" idea is stupid.
I do not recall Bush stating anything about flypaper. This thread is the first time I have heard it mentioned.Bush has stated on several occasions that in Iraq, we are fighting the terrorists there, so we don't have to fight them here. That is essentially the "flypaper strategy". It's very simple.
I do recall a nearly unanimous congress blessing the use of force if the president felt it was necessaryThey were decieved/manipulated by the Bush adminstration (although if they did their homework and analyzed the available factual data , they would have seen the holes in Bush's justifications. But unfortunately these people are politicians... nuff said).
I do recall the UN granting severe consequences if Saddam did not allow unfettered inspections and full disclosure of his military capability. And you know what? The inspections worked. Where are the WMD's?

[sinecure]

Originally posted by weldordave

Careful Sin. Aces & 8's are the "Dead Man's Hand". Wild Bill, Deadwood, Jack McCall...?:wave


and:

Sin, were you ever a spook in the military, HUMINT or otherwise? Just curious.

Of course you are right... "Aces and Eights" ain't something you'd want to have!! I don't know if I wanted to say that Tig was upset 'cause GWB had a run of aces, ot that he was upset that GWB didn't pull "aces and eights". Either way-- my dumb mistake. Nice catch!

As for whether I was some sort of Air America style spook or not :wink.... I could tell you... but then you know what I'd have to do...:eek: :lol :lol :lol :lol :clap

...actually, no, I was just a USAF flyboy-wannabe.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
heh..heh.. ha.. ha.. he.. he.. Saddam gone.. Dean surrenders .. :lol :lol :lol

Now for the WMD :smash

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Now for the WMD :smash

OK. We have so far eliminated most of your arguments so now you only have the WMD left to complain about. It will come in time as did all of your other idiotic objections.

Smash all you want - We are winning the war and helping the innocent Iraqis that wanted freedom from a tyrant. From your posts I realize this makes you unhappy but somehow I can't feel sorry for you.

I will sleep just fine knowing we have mistreated poor Saddam and deposed his evil regime.:smash

[AWPrime]

And after which they want freedom from US.:wink

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
We have so far eliminated most of your arguments so now you only have the WMD left to complain about.
The main reason we went in. Yeah, that's just one, tiny minor quibble. :lol

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort

The main reason we went in. Yeah, that's just one, tiny minor quibble. :lol

At least you are down to one issue to complain about! :clap

I still think we will find some WMD before this is over. Saddam had a propensity to bury everthing including hundreds of thousands of his own people. :smash

Three of the 7 (dare I say it) "evil regimes" are no longer a threat to the free world. :)

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
OK. We have so far eliminated most of your arguments so now you only have the WMD left to complain about. It will come in time as did all of your other idiotic objections.

Which of my arguments have you eliminated, DB? Were Saddam and Al Qaeda allied after all? You have never been able to prove that. Or was it... No, there were no other arguments the coalition had for the war. Yeah ok, Saddam's vicious crimes, but noone in here ever denied that.

We are winning the war

Yeah, that's what we're seeing every day... :rolleyes:

and helping the innocent Iraqis that wanted freedom from a tyrant.

A bit more respect for Paul Bremer please

From your posts I realize this makes you unhappy but somehow I can't feel sorry for you.

What makes me unhappy is that the coalition somehow managed to do everything wrong it could do wrong. It waged the war in the wrong way. It grossly underestimated the ethnic tensions in Iraq. It grossly miscalculated the antipathy against the coalition. It horribly overestimated the IGC. It launched the war with inadequate planning, as was for instance demonstrated by the troops who had to be transported from Turkey to Kuwait at the very last moment. The coalition managed to find insufficient help to rebuild Iraq. It did everything wrong it could do wrong. And that makes me unhappy. For the Iraqi's, for the Americans, for the Brits, for the Italians, for the Spaniards and for everyone else. The coalition's recklessness managed to make a horrible situation even worse. The coalition turned a boggart into a chimera.

I will sleep just fine knowing we have mistreated poor Saddam and deposed his evil regime.:smash

So will I, don't worry.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister

What makes me unhappy is that the coalition somehow managed to do everything wrong it could do wrong. It waged the war in the wrong way. It grossly underestimated the ethnic tensions in Iraq. It grossly miscalculated the antipathy against the coalition. It horribly overestimated the IGC. It launched the war with inadequate planning, as was for instance demonstrated by the troops who had to be transported from Turkey to Kuwait at the very last moment. The coalition managed to find insufficient help to rebuild Iraq. It did everything wrong it could do wrong. And that makes me unhappy. For the Iraqi's, for the Americans, for the Brits, for the Italians, for the Spaniards and for everyone else. The coalition's recklessness managed to make a horrible situation even worse. The coalition turned a boggart into a chimera.



And can you just IMAGiNE THIS? -- All that horribly misguided mess was led by an ignorant, dull-witted Texas cowboy!! How the heck could they have taken Saddam down in far less time than it took Jimmy Carter to get out Iran hostages back?...

We took Iraq in less time than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

It took less time to take Baghdad than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took Teddy Kennedy longer to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick than it took the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard.

We took Iraq in less time than it took to count the votes in Florida in the year 2000!

And the Democrats called the Iraq effort a failed plan?

Kinda makes you wonder, huh?

Oh, and "boggart" kinda makes ME wonder... got a definition? :rolleyes:

[aclu14]

Originally posted by sinecure


And can you just IMAGiNE THIS? -- All that horribly misguided mess was led by an ignorant, dull-witted Texas cowboy!! How the heck could they have taken Saddam down in far less time than it took Jimmy Carter to get out Iran hostages back?...

The whole Iraq operation is taking a heck of a lot longer than the Iranian hostage situation!



We took Iraq in less time than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

And how long has the Iraq war gone on? And the Afghanistan war?

We took Iraq in less time than it took to count the votes in Florida in the year 2000!

Ahh, and how long is it going to take to get OUT of Iraq?

And the Democrats called the Iraq effort a failed plan?

Kinda makes you wonder, huh?
see above - i really wonder why!

[/QUOTE]

[sinecure]

Somebody else wrote it to you in another thread... I'll state my vesion: "Google is your friend..."

You are laboring under some serious factual illusions there kiddo... In the future, you might want to look 'em up before you attempt getting into the ring. :wink

[DustyBottoms]

I wonder if Saddam still has all of his toenails... :lol :lol :lol

BEIRUT, Lebanon – Saddam Hussein has acknowledged depositing billions of dollars abroad before his ouster and has given interrogators the names of people who know where the money is, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council said in remarks published Monday.
The U.S.-appointed council estimates that the fallen Iraqi dictator seized $40 billion while in power and is now searching for that amount deposited in Switzerland, Japan, Germany and other countries, Iyad Allawi told the London-based Arab newspapers Al-Hayat and Asharq al-Awsat.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/29/102044.shtml

[DustyBottoms]

More proof of al Qaeda ties with Iraq! FROM CNN no less! :clap

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces operating in the so-called Sunni Triangle -- the region of Iraq most loyal to captured former dictator Saddam Hussein -- found a significant weapons cache that included al Qaeda literature and videotapes, the U.S. military said Tuesday.

Members of Task Force Ironhorse 2nd Infantry's Arrowhead Brigade discovered the material Monday morning at a site in Samarra, about 65 miles north-northwest of Baghdad. Some of the items were found hidden in a false wall, the military said.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/30/sprj.irq.alqaeda.weapons/

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-iraqarms30dec30,1,7925533.story?coll=la-home-headlines



— A Syrian trading company with close ties to the ruling regime smuggled weapons and military hardware to Saddam Hussein between 2000 and 2003, helping Syria become the main channel for illicit arms transfers to Iraq despite a stringent U.N. embargo, documents recovered in Iraq show."

Its the cousin of the emperious leader and controlled by other members of Assad's Baath Party and Alawite clan.Nothing happens without his ok.


this is good:
"Russia's foreign minister called the grounds for imposing the sanctions farfetched back then," said Leonid B. Roshal, deputy director of KBP Tula, in an interview in Moscow. "I was never taught these diplomatic niceties, so I was much more straightforward and said, 'The dog may bark, but the caravan will proceed.' "Companies from many nations and the u.s. violated sanctions. They do nothave the close watch of syria however. {so much for the idea of sanctions}.
[/i] just a good example of how there are to many different interests and views for the idea of sanctions and u.n. to work. Bush wins on bathists andsyria but gets bit by poland and our supposed allies.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
More proof of al Qaeda ties with Iraq! FROM CNN no less! :clap

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces operating in the so-called Sunni Triangle -- the region of Iraq most loyal to captured former dictator Saddam Hussein -- found a significant weapons cache that included al Qaeda literature and videotapes, the U.S. military said Tuesday.

Members of Task Force Ironhorse 2nd Infantry's Arrowhead Brigade discovered the material Monday morning at a site in Samarra, about 65 miles north-northwest of Baghdad. Some of the items were found hidden in a false wall, the military said.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/30/sprj.irq.alqaeda.weapons/
That's some pretty sad "proof".

Sounds like they found some educational materials (literature and videotapes) and some weapons (you don't see much of those in Iraq). How is that proof Iraq is connected to al Qaeda?

You know, it's also sad the way people try to justify the war after it's been waged. If it was justified in the first place why are you so concerned now?

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort


You know, it's also sad the way people try to justify the war after it's been waged. If it was justified in the first place why are you so concerned now?

Perhaps because people like you still don't "get it"?

Personally, I think y'all are a lost cause.... for no matter what kind or amount of "proof" they come up with, you'll pooh-pooh and discount it in some way.

Tell me, Tig... whatever happened to "IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL!"??

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
Personally, I think y'all are a lost cause.... for no matter what kind or amount of "proof" they come up with, you'll pooh-pooh and discount it in some way.Well, the problem for Bush is that the time for evidence was before he started the war. That's the fundamental problem. The evidence his administration presented was not true. Doesn't matter if it was bad intelligence or manipulation, really. These "proofs" that they're scraping out of the bottom of the barrel, 9 months after the fact, are immaterial as far as our justification goes, because we were wrong going in in the first place.

If you're a cop, and you bust into the wrong house, kill half the people living there mistakenly, but find stolen guns and child pornography in the back bedroom, you still were not justified in doing what you did, and you will be subject to penalty under the law.

Is America a country of laws, or not?


The Bush admin wagged their fingers at us and said we couldn't wait for a mushroom cloud. They wagged their fingers and said they were certain WMDs and bio-weapons existed in Iraq, and that they knew where they were. They wagged their fingers and implied if you or I disagreed with them, we were unpatriotic and on the side of the terrorists.

They were wrong.

The ends never justify the means when it comes to war.

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by sinecure


Perhaps because people like you still don't "get it"?



Personally, I think y'all are a lost cause.... for no matter what kind or amount of "proof" they come up with, you'll pooh-pooh and discount it in some way.

Tell me, sin... whatever happened to "IT"S ALL ABOUT WMD"S!"??

Hey tig, see what fun you can have using their own words against them :lol :lol :lol :lol :clap

[DustyBottoms]

Sounds like they found some educational materials (literature and videotapes) and some weapons (you don't see much of those in Iraq). How is that proof Iraq is connected to al Qaeda?

It is evidence Tig. It substantiates the CIA's intelligence that Saddam was allowing al Qaeda to train their terrorists in Iraq.

It should be good news to those Americans that said otherwise.

I am proud that our government stopped allowing terrorists to get away with attacking our citizens and military without fighting back. It is long overdue.

I wish you could feel the same way. It's a good feeling! :)

[Ateo]

DB, I honestly wish I could feel as secure as you do, but I don't.
It substantiates the CIA's intelligence that Saddam was allowing al Qaeda to train their terrorists in Iraq. How? It's just literature and videotapes. Look around the net--you can find Al Qaeda training videos all over the place. People (even in the US) have them on their hard drives--not because these people are connected to terrorists, but because they're curious about Al Qaeda. This evidence is highly circumstantial, very weak. It would never hold up in a court of law. Additionally, we're talking about "military sources" here...the same folks who brought you Jessica Lynch, superhero.I am proud that our government stopped allowing terrorists to get away with attacking our citizens and military without fighting back. It is long overdue. Again, no proof that these were Al Qaeda people. Again, we're fighting insurgents in Iraq, the last I heard. Not Al Qaeda.