Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: we are NO SAFER

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    can you tell me how after three years of 'supposedly' fighting a war on terror..how are we more vulnerable for an even greater attack...

    can you please tell me how spending 200 Billion on an unnecessary Iraq war has made us safer?
    what if Bush put that 200 Billion toward ACTUAL homeland security..What if Bush had let the weapons inspectors do their job? They would have found nothing...that money could have actually gone towards protecting us...
    BUt unfortunately, they weren't going to spend 200 billion with the safety of americans being their only return...
    The 200 billion spent in Iraq will have a large return for all those houston oil service companies and verious other defense contractors...
    MEANWHILe, Back in the US, it's impossible to have a guaranteed saFE FLIGHT OR COMMUTE TP WORK.


    i'M NOT SAYING THAT CLINTON WOULD HAVE OR kERRYU WILL DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY..bUT bUSH IS A fAILURE.

    [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040722/pl_afp/us_attacks_commission_040722161415]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...on_040722161415[/url]

  2. #2
    Maxman
    Guest
    I forgot that Bush was the one who stopped the weapons inspectors from doing their jobs. At one time I thought that Saddam guy kicked out the inspectors. My bad.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually..IT WAS bush..They were there..saddam (forced by the US) let them back in..it was the bush-team who said refused to accept the inspectors finding..or lack their of...So the Bush team lied and said that Saddam Still isn't fully compliying..then all of a sudden this 48 hour deadlione BS was announced...
    it was a rush to war...
    so you apology is accepted. Thanks.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Jul 22 2004, 03:22 PM
    [b] Actually..IT WAS bush..They were there..saddam (forced by the US) let them back in..it was the bush-team who said refused to accept the inspectors finding..or lack their of...So the Bush team lied and said that Saddam Still isn't fully compliying..then all of a sudden this 48 hour deadlione BS was announced...
    it was a rush to war...
    so you apology is accepted. Thanks. [/b][/quote]
    Look son, you have no idea what you are talking about. Saddam played games with the inspectors for 11 years. I realize you were only a toddler when the first war was fought, but Saddam would play games all the time. He would refuse access to certain areas until he was able to move his weapons to other locations.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    actually it is you who has no idea what you are about....yes there were many games played for 11 years..i'm talking about the months prior to the war...
    Bush did a good thing by getting pressure on saddam and getting inspectors back in..BUT he (bush) never allowed them to complete their work..why? b/v the war decision had alreay been made..MOnTHs prior..

    It's my belief that this was a mistake! THERE are no wmd's..bin laden was never plotting in saddaams castle!
    200 billions could have been better spent..like actually SECURING America..instead little bush probably inceased al qeada ranks by tens of thousands and left us vulnerable..FOR what? for saddams pistol to hang in his office..and so that maybe someday iraq will be ssafe enough for foriegn investment..

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    bman - Blix said that Saddam was no cooperating and had not "made a fundamental decision to disarm", even at that late stage after Res 1441 and 200,000 US troops parked in Kuwait. Even after 1441, Saddam would not allow inspectors to interview scientists without a Ba'ath party member present. Also, those Al Samoud missiles that Saddam destroyed were not even included in his "final" report issued to the UN in December 2002, which was after 1441 gave him one last chance and found him to eb in "material breach" if over 15 resolutions, and those missles had ranges which exceeded the limits that Saddam agreed to, and can easily be weaponized. Bush started rattling his sabers months before inspectors were allowed back in, and almost a full year was spent d*cking around at the UN prior to the war, which follwed 12 YEARS of defiance from Saddam, during which he shot at our planes (violation) and grafted from US taxpayers during Oil for Food, buying support within the UN security Council.

    The "safer" question cannot be asked in a vaccuum. How safe were we before the war? How safe were we in 1993 when after the WTC was attacked, Saddam gave the Iraqi national involved in that attack safe haven in Iraq. What about Abu Nidal? How safe were we on 9-10-01? How safe are we now?

    These are questions that cannot be conclusively answered right now, and possibly ever. How "safe" are we when we are driving on the road?

    There are rational, principled cases to be made against this war. I don't agree with most of them, agree with some. There are legitimate things on which to criticize and yes, even hammer away at Bush for. But you lose credibility and people stop taking you seriously when you write about nonsense, and simply parrot talking points and cliches about being "safer" or not.

    The truth is likely that the Afghanistan War likely pisses off terrorists just as much as the Iraq War does. You think people who are persuadable to become terrorists sit back and say, "Well, when the infidels killed Afghani children, I didn't mind. But Iraqi children?! Allah - turn on the hot tub and lube up the virgins, cause I'll be seeing you soon!!!"

    Also - it is further contradictory to hear people who every day tell us that we "should" have invaded Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Pakistan instead. Maybe so, but then don't use the deaths of soldiers or the costs of war in $ and in terms of making us "less safe" because those are not your concerns. You know as well as I do the same "oil!!!!!" choruses would be just as loud had we invaded Saudi Arabia, and soldiers would be dying in there as well, and arabs would be pissed about it, etc.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agreed 100% with taking on al qeda in afghanistan and fighting them non stop ..I disagree 100% with the iraq war pre prior and still today..
    I also belive that the 200 billion dollars spent on it SHOULD have gone to securing America (america isn't secure)...

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    bman's right --we are no safer -- there's just as many liberals and democrat's here as there were before 9/11.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    guys cmon obviously the only way we can be truly safe is to fight an unending war against terror, in an area of the world that just happens to boast the world's second largest oil reserve

    i mean, duh!!!

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rummy 's direct orders to touch the genitals of iraqui prisoners helps me sleep better at night..

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's official..bman is a complete bafoon!

    Not only does he not know how to right complete sentences but he can't read them either. The report actually says, "we are safer but not safe" Quote from page 16:

    [quote][b]Because of offensive actions taken against Al-queda since 9/11.....we are safer today. But we are not safe.[/b][/quote]


    Also; if you read the summary (page 12) it seems clinton was waiting for a written invitation before he went after obl.

    [url=http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.report/911ReportExec.pdf]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.r...1ReportExec.pdf[/url]

    The report (not the summary linked above) also unequivocally links Al-Queda to Hussien.

    The report has alos gone on to state that, as a matter of fact, Hussien did offer safe haven to OBL.

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