Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Bush's speach last night

  1. #1
    Despite the predictable partisan media ramblings about lack of details and such, I actually got a pretty good picture of what the plan was going forward in Iraq. I think it was importand for the ME and Iraqi's to uderstand our intentions as well. Hopefully after Bush spelled it out last night, some of their concerns were eased.

    I for one have renewed confidence that the mission could still succeed in Iraq.

  2. #2
    And I'm entirely aware that speech is spelled wrong on the title :blink:

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,502
    I was out last night on appointments. I will check out the transcript later.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    I was in the office and watched it there....I was more interested in what the liberal media would say about it.

    On my drive home I forced myself the listen to NPR and Err America.

    Err America is a joke; no substance whatsoever. Sam Cedar makes jokes that Janine Garofalo doesn't understand. After calling all the people at the War College last evening "white trash", making fun of the President's Texas drawl and acting like jerks they really had nothing to add nor anything constructive (pro or con) to say of the speech....ironically they immediately went to a civil rights lawyer to talk about the Abu Graib "atrocity".

    NPR was actually very positive about the President's speech which I found surprising. They had some dude named Hanlon from the Brookings Institute on who liked the speech...he made an interesting statement, especially for someone from Brookings...he remarked how the President continually tied "the war in Iraq to the fight on terrorism", which is his strength in the polls. Hanlon said that statement may not have enough weight just yet but that situation (terrorists connection to Iraq) may just be opening up. (Watch what happens with the North Korea-Libya nuclear weapons connection and see if Iraqi scientists were not in Libya working on making a nuclear weapon).

    The NY Times was also relatively positive about the speech today, which I also found surprising, though in their appeasing, internationalist policy they still feel the need to harp on the President to "apologize to the world".

  5. #5
    Speaking of Air America, I put it on a few times in the morning during the commercials on 1050 espn and 770. They have some Brittish woman hosting a show that is constantly ripping on the Presidens and generally is criticising this country. Am I the only one who finds that offensive.


    Air AMERICA?? Brittish nationals criticising the US?????????? :blink: :blink:

  6. #6
    cheif i thought the Brits were our friends

    they are one of the only real troop-giving members of the sad-ass "internation coalition" Bush slapped together prior to the Iraq Abortion... i mean war

  7. #7
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 12:01 PM
    [b] cheif i thought the Brits were our friends

    they are one of the only real troop-giving members of the sad-ass "internation coalition" Bush slapped together prior to the Iraq Abortion... i mean war [/b][/quote]
    And that makes it ok for a foreign national to come on our airwaves and criticise our policys?? I would have a problem with this on either end of the spectrum. If some Bosnian was a host of a conservative talk show and was criticising Clinton and America's policies under him I would have a problem with that too. Point is the infomercial that is air america needs to bring foreign nationals to criticise our country. Its disturbing.

  8. #8
    so cheifs what is this plan? i heard the speech and it sounded to me like nothing has changed.

  9. #9
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 25 2004, 12:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 25 2004, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 12:01 PM
    [b] cheif i thought the Brits were our friends

    they are one of the only real troop-giving members of the sad-ass "internation coalition" Bush slapped together prior to the Iraq Abortion... i mean war [/b][/quote]
    And that makes it ok for a foreign national to come on our airwaves and criticise our policys?? I would have a problem with this on either end of the spectrum. If some Bosnian was a host of a conservative talk show and was criticising Clinton and America&#39;s policies under him I would have a problem with that too. Point is the infomercial that is air america needs to bring foreign nationals to criticise our country. Its disturbing. [/b][/quote]
    Just a few questions:

    --It is wrong for a "British National" to Criticize American Policy on US Airwaves (when paid to do so by a US Company) but it is OK for US Millitary Forces to Invade and Conquer and Kill 10K+ Civillians in another nation who had yet to Attack the USA itself?

    --Did the "British National" state she was a Non-USA Citizen, or are you assuming that fact based on her accent or opinions?

    --Do the opinions of our most staunch Allys citizens (the United Kingdom) no longer have any meaning to US Citizens?

    --Is free speech in the United States reserved only for American Citizens?

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+May 25 2004, 12:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ May 25 2004, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -chiefst2000@May 25 2004, 12:07 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 12:01 PM
    [b] cheif i thought the Brits were our friends

    they are one of the only real troop-giving members of the sad-ass "internation coalition" Bush slapped together prior to the Iraq Abortion... i mean war [/b][/quote]
    And that makes it ok for a foreign national to come on our airwaves and criticise our policys?? I would have a problem with this on either end of the spectrum. If some Bosnian was a host of a conservative talk show and was criticising Clinton and America&#39;s policies under him I would have a problem with that too. Point is the infomercial that is air america needs to bring foreign nationals to criticise our country. Its disturbing. [/b][/quote]
    Just a few questions:

    --It is wrong for a "British National" to Criticize American Policy on US Airwaves (when paid to do so by a US Company) but it is OK for US Millitary Forces to Invade and Conquer and Kill 10K+ Civillians in another nation who had yet to Attack the USA itself?

    --Did the "British National" state she was a Non-USA Citizen, or are you assuming that fact based on her accent or opinions?

    --Do the opinions of our most staunch Allys citizens (the United Kingdom) no longer have any meaning to US Citizens?

    --Is free speech in the United States reserved only for American Citizens? [/b][/quote]
    Warfish - I&#39;m confused - when did Germany attack the US? When did Italy? We invaded those countries in WWII....

    When did Afghanistan attack the US?

    OBL declared a pan-arab and pan-Muslim Jihad against the USA in 1998. It looks now like that statement was a serious one. How should we react in light of the fact that (1) OBL and terrorists have demonstrated an ability to kill Americans at home and abroad and (2) we generally do not know where, when or in what form these attacks will occur and (3) there is no country called "Terrorist" which we can conventionally invade or provably trace any attack back to or wait until they mass their conventional military and formally declare war against us.

    Terrorism is unconventional, yet we are beholden to the conventional rules about "attacks" and "sovreignty" which is exactly what provides them with their only advantage over us? That works out well for them, I guess.

    What "right" did OBL have to knock down the WTC or bomb the Khobar Towers or the USS Cole? What "right" did Saddam have to shoot at our planes for 12 years or to defy with impunitythe terms of a cease-fore agreement he signed? 60,000 Iraqi civilians died each year because of the UN sanctions imposed after a war Saddam started and lost and continued to defy the cease-fire terms of. Where is your citing of that? This doens&#39;t even include the hundreds of thousands who Saddam simply murdered. 10,000 civilians is tragic, but how many civilians will dies next year and the year after and the two years after? 60,000 per year? How many civilians were killed by arab Muslim terrorists who are in Iraq and trying to deter Iraqis from cooperating with the Coaltion and Iraqi Governing Council?

    You seem to be thinking about terrorism as a criminal matter, which is the mistake the USA has been making ever since the Iranian-backed Hizbollah group killed 200 marines in Lebanon, took hostages and continued their assaults all the way up to 9-11. We treated it as a criminal offense and sought to persecute not even the GROUP behind any particular attack, but the individuals who actually carried it out. We had no sustained, broadly-scoped response and the problem festered. THEY have been the ones who have launched an broad, sustained and intense war against us and have been doing so for decades. It is not simply 9-11 in particular that we need to "avenge." That is ludicrous. Bush&#39;s key insight after 9-11 was to realize that to combat this threat of terrorism, we need to recognize it for what it actually is - a sustained campaign by many inter-locking foes, across many countries, to murder and intimidate America. Instead of serving subpoenas after 9-11, like we did when OBL attacked the WTC in 1993, Bush realized that we need a combination of overhwelming hard power, (Afghanistan, Iraq) and some soft power, which appears to be making inroads in how Pakistan and Saudi Arabis are dealing with terror. Freeze funds, give the Alhabet Soup agencies more leeway in prosecuting terrorists in country, track their money supplies, etc. Time will tell how each aspect pans out and who mnows how serious Pakistan and Sadui Arabia are, but we are TRYING soft power there and no one gives Bush credit for it. What is clear is that Saddam was not capable of aligning with us even in name only, and soft power was of no use in Iraq. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism (so much evidence that it&#39;s pointless to debate this with someone who will not accept it - they are obviously close-minded) had defied the terms of a cease-fire agreement for a decade, had pursued WMD and nukes, and had WMD that was unaccounted for, even by Mr. Blix&#39;s own writings. Assuming that he was aging well or that hey, he probably could be trusted when he said yet never proved that his WMD were gone, or allowing his sons to continue to rule Iraq for decades afterwards was simply not an option. The guy defies inspectors for a long time and kicked them out for 4 long years after 1998, when Clinton and Kerry and France and every other person was convinced that he had WMD. Assuming that he had none or wasn&#39;t ALREADY selling them to terrorists is just stupid.

    We haven&#39;t found stockpiles, but we found over 120 material infractions of the terms of the agreement Saddam agreed to, and nothing exists to imply that he or his sons had lost the will to pursue WMD once sanctions were eased. My god, insurgents recently used chemical warheads and people were tripping over themselves to say that they didn&#39;t prove stockpiles existed (ironically, the same people who were in Iraq searching that couldn&#39;t actually find chemical weapons that were obviously there were the loudest and quickest to talk (Kay and Blix) - CYA anyone?) There was a movement within the UN to end sanctions entirely, since France, Russia and China were already trading oil with him, and the Iraqi civilians were suffering from them and this suffering was generating worldwide sympathy, and was even cited by OBL as a reason for 9-11. If sanctions end, Saddam has free reign to do whatever he wants. He would never cooperate with the US in a new War on Terror and would have likely worked actively to thwart what were trying to do with other countries. So he had to go. Additionally, an ancillary benefit could be that Iraqis live in a freer society and after a while, perhaps terrorism as a means towads an end is not attractive anymore since (1) they already live in a less repressive society ands (2) they know it will engender a fierce repsonse.

    But people nit-pick about everything a year into the Iraq War and trip over themselves to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt and accuse Bush or every nefoarious intention any English major and concoct. It&#39;s absurd...especially in light of Saddam&#39;s actions and the UN&#39;s actions in the Oil for Food scandal where hardly ANY of the support intended for Iraqis actually made it to them. Coupled with the fact that OBL cited Iraqi peopl&#39;s suffering as a reaon for 9-11, and the fact that the UN not only colluded with Saddam to graft the Iraqi people, but actually protected him when we spoke of lberating them is the height of ognorant stupidity, IMO. But people hate Bush more than they care about serious things, so mistakes that were made during the war and occupation are simply equated with nefarious motives or lack of planning beforehand - as if ANY military campaign has bee implemented with EVERY unknown accounted for prior to the hostilities, or that some Monday Morning QB retired General with a book to sell is full of integrity and comptence were he to have led this charge.

    No, we&#39;d rather blame ourselves and nit-pick and score partisan "gotcha&#33;" points than realize that we faced a determined enemy and the prospects of a long and difficult war.

  11. #11
    [quote][b]Warfish - I&#39;m confused - when did Germany attack the US? When did Italy? We invaded those countries in WWII....
    [/b][/quote]

    On Dec 7th, 1941, Japaneese Imperial Forces attacked US Naval Forces at Pearl Harbour.

    On Dec. 11th, 1941, Germany Declared War on the United States.

    [quote][b]When did Afghanistan attack the US? [/b][/quote]

    On Sept. 11th, 2001 Terrorists Forces of the Al Quaida, Based in Saudi Arabia and Afganistan (among other nations) hijacked and crashed four US Passenger planes, destorying the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon (the fourth crashed in a Pennsylvania Field).

    Since the AQ Network was primarily based at that time in Afganistan, US Forces invaded that nation and overthrew the Government there, a Government that openly supported the AQ Network.

    Even though the AQ Network is primarily funded via contact in Saudi Arabia, US Command does not feel an invasion of that nation is warranted at this time.

    [quote][b]OBL declared a pan-arab and pan-Muslim Jihad against the USA in 1998. It looks now like that statement was a serious one.[/b][/quote]

    Does one man have the power to speak for all Nations of a similar religion?

    [quote][b]How should we react in light of the fact that (1) OBL and terrorists have demonstrated an ability to kill Americans at home and abroad and (2) we generally do not know where, when or in what form these attacks will occur and (3) there is no country called "Terrorist" which we can conventionally invade or provably trace any attack back to or wait until they mass their conventional military and formally declare war against us.[/b][/quote]

    Better Intelligence Services. Pro-Active National Defense and Immigration Reform. Immediate termination of any and all Terrorist camps, bases or other Capital Sites once located and confirmed.

    [quote][b]Terrorism is unconventional, yet we are beholden to the conventional rules about "attacks" and "sovreignty" which is exactly what provides them with their only advantage over us? [/b][/quote]

    Terrorism is, by it&#39;s nature, a Guerilla Warfare tactic. Correct.

    [quote][b]What "right" did OBL have to knock down the WTC or bomb the Khobar Towers or the USS Cole? [/b][/quote]

    None Whatsoever.

    [quote][b]What "right" did Saddam have to shoot at our planes for 12 years or to defy the terms of a cease-fore agreement he signed with impunity?[/b][/quote]

    The same "right" the US would have if Iraqi planes flew over US territory or attempted to control US Airspace. Saddam should have been removed from Power and his nation disarmed completely at the end of the 1st Gulf War, a more legitimate and warranted Millitary Campaign.

    The fact that the US Forces did not finish the job (due to political reasons) is the reason why Saddam was able to continue to defy US and UN desires. Leaving him in power was the equivalent to leaving Hitler in Charge of Germany after WWII.

  12. #12
    Jeez Jets5....add just a little to your post eh? LOL&#33;

    I say find and kill the terrorists, not entire nations that MIGHT have ONCE supported a AQ member or two..

    Do not start a new job till you have finished the first (Afganistan).

    Fight the biggest threats first (North Korea).

    Don&#39;t blame just those that are convenient. Blame ALL who are Guilty (Saudi Arabia).

    Do not make excuses for why we do something (WMD&#39;s, Saddam is Evil, We like Democracy). US Citizens desrve the truth.

    Think before you act: Invade an entire nation, killing thousands of civillians in the process, to kill or remove one man, and you create a thousand new enemies, a thousand new Bin Ladens.

    Our Policy of dealing with the Middle East needs to be reviewed and revised, because after more than 60 Years, we are no better off than we started. More and More we are hated (and not just because of our culture either, as so many Conservatives conveniently Claim). They hate us because we play with their nations like toys. We ignore their sovreignty and play one against the other like a game of chess. All the while we take their oil, prop us certain dictators and kill others.

    No matter what your feeling is on the War itself, you must admit that we, as a nation, have been less than fair or amiable to the Arabic World over the decades.

    That doesn&#39;t excuse the extremists (Evil is wrong no matter the reason IMO), but put yourself into their shoes for just a second and perhaps you would view the world a wee bit differently.

  13. #13
    great post

    5ever has no problem talking about OBL&#39;s Pan Islamic Jihad

    but doesn&#39;t want to comment on the fact that Saudi&#39;s are our allies in the war on terror...

    there are more terrorists in Saudi and Pakistan than there are anywhere else

    but we are fighting Iraq and Afghanistan... why?

    Carlyle Group protecting it&#39;s investments makes more sense to me logically than the idea that we are somehow nuturing democracy in Iraq

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:32 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Warfish - I&#39;m confused - when did Germany attack the US? When did Italy? We invaded those countries in WWII....
    [/b][/quote]

    On Dec 7th, 1941, Japaneese Imperial Forces attacked US Naval Forces at Pearl Harbour.

    On Dec. 11th, 1941, Germany Declared War on the United States.

    [quote][b]When did Afghanistan attack the US? [/b][/quote]

    On Sept. 11th, 2001 Terrorists Forces of the Al Quaida, Based in Saudi Arabia and Afganistan (among other nations) hijacked and crashed four US Passenger planes, destorying the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon (the fourth crashed in a Pennsylvania Field).

    Since the AQ Network was primarily based at that time in Afganistan, US Forces invaded that nation and overthrew the Government there, a Government that openly supported the AQ Network.

    Even though the AQ Network is primarily funded via contact in Saudi Arabia, US Command does not feel an invasion of that nation is warranted at this time.

    [quote][b]OBL declared a pan-arab and pan-Muslim Jihad against the USA in 1998. It looks now like that statement was a serious one.[/b][/quote]

    Does one man have the power to speak for all Nations of a similar religion?

    [quote][b]How should we react in light of the fact that (1) OBL and terrorists have demonstrated an ability to kill Americans at home and abroad and (2) we generally do not know where, when or in what form these attacks will occur and (3) there is no country called "Terrorist" which we can conventionally invade or provably trace any attack back to or wait until they mass their conventional military and formally declare war against us.[/b][/quote]

    Better Intelligence Services. Pro-Active National Defense and Immigration Reform. Immediate termination of any and all Terrorist camps, bases or other Capital Sites once located and confirmed.

    [quote][b]Terrorism is unconventional, yet we are beholden to the conventional rules about "attacks" and "sovreignty" which is exactly what provides them with their only advantage over us? [/b][/quote]

    Terrorism is, by it&#39;s nature, a Guerilla Warfare tactic. Correct.

    [quote][b]What "right" did OBL have to knock down the WTC or bomb the Khobar Towers or the USS Cole? [/b][/quote]

    None Whatsoever.

    [quote][b]What "right" did Saddam have to shoot at our planes for 12 years or to defy the terms of a cease-fore agreement he signed with impunity?[/b][/quote]

    The same "right" the US would have if Iraqi planes flew over US territory or attempted to control US Airspace. Saddam should have been removed from Power and his nation disarmed completely at the end of the 1st Gulf War, a more legitimate and warranted Millitary Campaign.

    The fact that the US Forces did not finish the job (due to political reasons) is the reason why Saddam was able to continue to defy US and UN desires. Leaving him in power was the equivalent to leaving Hitler in Charge of Germany after WWII. [/b][/quote]
    So Germany and Italy never attacked us, thanks for agreeing.

    Why didn&#39;t we invade Afghanistan in 1998, a day after OBL declared war against us?

    "Better" intelligence services? Wow, hadn&#39;t thought of that. :blink: That sounds easy&#33;

    "Pro-active national defense" - that is a soothing group of syllables&#33; Great&#33; That&#39;s all I need to know&#33;

    "Immediate termination of any and all terrorist camps" - Why hasn&#39;t anyone ever thought of this before?&#33; You&#39;re on a roll dude&#33;n Sovreignty and diplomacy be damned&#33; I am sure no countries would consider those bombings and act of war or aggression or violation of their sovreignty, that plan doens&#39;t sound anything like "You&#39;re either with us or against us&#33;"

    So when stateless terrorists defy conventional rules of war, we are not allowed to defy those same rules in response? Got it. Too bad for us, huh?

    Wouldn&#39;t removing Saddam in 1991 have been a violation of the sovreignty of a ruler who had never attacked the US? Exactly what was different about removing him in 1991 or in 2003?

    BTW - the UN would have never agreed to back the 1991 war of regime change had been included in that Resolution.


    Your last analogy is not apt. Saddam agreed to the terms of a cease-fire and one of the terms was that the UN (of course it really mean the US since no other country ever lifts a finger) would patrol the no-fly zones in order to police their skies and ensure the protection of the Kurds. Shooting at even one plane was considered to be a material violation and an act of aggression by Saddam, in whichcase the Resolution authorizing force would be enacted once again. But yeah, you&#39;re summary about Iraqi planes trying to control our airspace is better. :blink:

    We stopped in 1991 and gave Saddam a chance to act like a civilized man. He didn&#39;t and has 12 years of chances. He got removed.

  15. #15
    are you seriously saying that in 1998 OBL spoke on behalf of all Islamic nations, including Afghanistan?

    a little shoddy i will say this much it&#39;s a more definitive declaration of war than anything that Americans have done since WWII.

    congress hasn&#39;t formally declared war on anyone since 1941

  16. #16
    [quote][b]So Germany and Italy never attacked us, thanks for agreeing.

    Why didn&#39;t we invade Afghanistan in 1998, a day after OBL declared war against us?[/b][/quote]

    Don&#39;t be ignorant Jets5. There is a msaive difference between a single man declaring some kinf of religious Jihad vs. a Nation who had already conquered most of Eurpoe and whop is allied with the Nation that just crippled our Pacific Navy.

    You cannot possibly equate the two in any kind of logical sense.

    [quote][b]"Better" intelligence services? Wow, hadn&#39;t thought of that. That sounds easy&#33;

    "Pro-active national defense" - that is a soothing group of syllables&#33; Great&#33; That&#39;s all I need to know&#33;

    "Immediate termination of any and all terrorist camps" - Why hasn&#39;t anyone ever thought of this before?&#33; You&#39;re on a roll dude&#33;n Sovreignty and diplomacy be damned&#33; I am sure no countries would consider those bombings and act of war or aggression or violation of their sovreignty, that plan doens&#39;t sound anything like "You&#39;re either with us or against us&#33;"[/b][/quote]

    You ask a question, then ***** at the answers. Again, don&#39;t be ignorant Jets5. Terrorism CAN be contained with the proper intelligence services and a change in how this nation handles immigration and other border & importation related issues.

    If you didn&#39;t want an answer, don&#39;t ask the question.

    [quote][b]So when stateless terrorists defy conventional rules of war, we are not allowed to defy those same rules in response? Got it. Too bad for us, huh?[/b][/quote]

    Not if we are the "Moral" nation we claim to be, no, not under most circumstances.

    [quote][b]Wouldn&#39;t removing Saddam in 1991 have been a violation of the sovreignty of a ruler who had never attacked the US? Exactly what was different about removing him in 1991 or in 2003?[/b][/quote]

    No, Saddam acting aggressively toward a US ally Nation (Kuwiat). We defended our ally and should have finished the job at that time, as we did in WWII.

    [quote][b]BTW - the UN would have never agreed to back the 1991 war of regime change had been included in that Resolution.[/b][/quote]

    Yes, the would have. But you can claim they would not have all you like, as long as that backs your argument.

    I also thought the UN meant nothing, so why even include that comment? The UN doesn&#39;t run the USA right?

    [quote][b]Your last analogy is not apt. Saddam agreed to the terms of a cease-fire and one of the terms was that the UN (of course it really mean the US since no other country ever lifts a finger) would patrol the no-fly zones in order to police their skies and ensure the protection of the Kurds. Shooting at even one plane was considered to be a material violation and an act of aggression by Saddam, in whichcase the Resolution authorizing force would be enacted once again. But yeah, you&#39;re summary about Iraqi planes trying to control our airspace is better.

    We stopped in 1991 and gave Saddam a chance to act like a civilized man. He didn&#39;t and has 12 years of chances. He got removed. [/b][/quote]

    The only reason you claim it isn&#39;t "apt" is becuase it disagrees with your point. If you truly feel the US should have let him have ANOTHER Chance, you are a fool Jets5. I don&#39;t think you are a fool at all, but to claim we did the right thing by leaving him in power, you are sadly mistaken.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:46 PM
    [b] great post

    5ever has no problem talking about OBL&#39;s Pan Islamic Jihad

    but doesn&#39;t want to comment on the fact that Saudi&#39;s are our allies in the war on terror...

    there are more terrorists in Saudi and Pakistan than there are anywhere else

    but we are fighting Iraq and Afghanistan... why?

    Carlyle Group protecting it&#39;s investments makes more sense to me logically than the idea that we are somehow nuturing democracy in Iraq [/b][/quote]
    Why invade North Korea? They&#39;ve never attacked us&#33; They merely violated the terms of an agreement that they signed with us, that isn&#39;t a big deal...didn&#39;t you get that memo?

    Bitonti - you are only interested in scoring "gotcha&#33;" points or prattling about oil conspiracies. You know damn well we couldn&#39;t invade all of those countries if we wanted to. So we need to use hard power and soft power. Time will tell if we need to put more pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but it does appear that they are making strides towards helping us...they have arrested many terrorists and Riyadh has even been bombed by terrorists&#33;

    You guys all act as if we had clear choices these past 60 years or so in the ME and consistently chose bad over good. And no one mentions that the Soviets actively tried to gain control of that region through outright military force or by "propping up" their own people. Often in history, leaders are faced with two very bad options, both with potential long-term negative ramifications. Yet Monday Morning QBs who read cnn.com&#39;s "Timeline of the Middle East" all of a sudden know all of the answers.

    It&#39;s 9-12-2001: Tell me what you are going to do to fight terror, country by country, terrorist group by terrorist group. I am breathless with anticipation....

  18. #18
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+May 25 2004, 12:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ May 25 2004, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -chiefst2000@May 25 2004, 12:07 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 12:01 PM
    [b] cheif i thought the Brits were our friends

    they are one of the only real troop-giving members of the sad-ass "internation coalition" Bush slapped together prior to the Iraq Abortion... i mean war [/b][/quote]
    And that makes it ok for a foreign national to come on our airwaves and criticise our policys?? I would have a problem with this on either end of the spectrum. If some Bosnian was a host of a conservative talk show and was criticising Clinton and America&#39;s policies under him I would have a problem with that too. Point is the infomercial that is air america needs to bring foreign nationals to criticise our country. Its disturbing. [/b][/quote]
    Just a few questions:

    --It is wrong for a "British National" to Criticize American Policy on US Airwaves (when paid to do so by a US Company) but it is OK for US Millitary Forces to Invade and Conquer and Kill 10K+ Civillians in another nation who had yet to Attack the USA itself?

    --Did the "British National" state she was a Non-USA Citizen, or are you assuming that fact based on her accent or opinions?

    --Do the opinions of our most staunch Allys citizens (the United Kingdom) no longer have any meaning to US Citizens?

    --Is free speech in the United States reserved only for American Citizens? [/b][/quote]
    This is nonsense. Free speech is not the issue here. I didn&#39;t advocate arresting the woman. I simply find it offensive that air America, a [color=blue]paid infomercial for the Democratic party[/color], is getting their anti Bush anti American message across using foreigners. I would be equally as offended in hearing a foreigner criticising Clinton and Americas policys under him on American radio.

  19. #19
    [quote][b]This is nonsense. [/b][/quote]

    Sure it is. Since it disagrees with your side, it MUST be nonesense.

    [quote][b]I simply find it offensive that air America, a paid infomercial for the Democratic party, is getting their anti Bush anti American message across using foreigners[/b][/quote]

    Sure, and Right-Wing Radio isn&#39;t a "paid Commercial" for the Republican party&#33;&#33;&#33; (SHOCK&#33;)

    [quote][b]I would be equally as offended in hearing a foreigner criticising Clinton and Americas policys under him on American radio.[/b][/quote]

    I am sure you would be.....

  20. #20
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+May 25 2004, 01:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ May 25 2004, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:46 PM
    [b] great post

    5ever has no problem talking about OBL&#39;s Pan Islamic Jihad

    but doesn&#39;t want to comment on the fact that Saudi&#39;s are our allies in the war on terror...

    there are more terrorists in Saudi and Pakistan than there are anywhere else

    but we are fighting Iraq and Afghanistan... why?

    Carlyle Group protecting it&#39;s investments makes more sense to me logically than the idea that we are somehow nuturing democracy in Iraq [/b][/quote]
    Why invade North Korea? They&#39;ve never attacked us&#33; They merely violated the terms of an agreement that they signed with us, that isn&#39;t a big deal...didn&#39;t you get that memo?

    Bitonti - you are only interested in scoring "gotcha&#33;" points or prattling about oil conspiracies. You know damn well we couldn&#39;t invade all of those countries if we wanted to. So we need to use hard power and soft power. Time will tell if we need to put more pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but it does appear that they are making strides towards helping us...they have arrested many terrorists and Riyadh has even been bombed by terrorists&#33;

    You guys all act as if we had clear choices these past 60 years or so in the ME and consistently chose bad over good. And no one mentions that the Soviets actively tried to gain control of that region through outright military force or by "propping up" their own people. Often in history, leaders are faced with two very bad options, both with potential long-term negative ramifications. Yet Monday Morning QBs who read cnn.com&#39;s "Timeline of the Middle East" all of a sudden know all of the answers.

    It&#39;s 9-12-2001: Tell me what you are going to do to fight terror, country by country, terrorist group by terrorist group. I am breathless with anticipation.... [/b][/quote]
    5ever

    It&#39;s so clear that the people questioning your above posts have no good counterpoints. Instead they focus on catchphrases and one-liners. I have yet to read a clear and decisive counter to your arguments. Its easy to nitpick guys, but its hard to argue with the facts.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us