Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Reason for war DU JOUR

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like

    Reason for war DU JOUR

    What's the soup du jour?

    Why it's the soup of the day.

    Mmmm that sounds good I'll have that.

    ---

    just when you needed a new reason to believe in the Iraq war - Bush delivers!

    [QUOTE]''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/[/url]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]What's the soup du jour?

    Why it's the soup of the day.

    Mmmm that sounds good I'll have that.

    ---

    just when you needed a new reason to believe in the Iraq war - Bush delivers!



    [url]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/[/url][/QUOTE]

    more idiot rhetoric from the libs...hey- maybe if billy bj had taken the same stance 7 years ago with Afgahnistan we wouldn't be in this mess today...ya think???

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes the irresponsibility of Clinton allows anyone who follows him to make as many mistakes as possible. Or next president could be a feces throwing chimp and it wouldn't be his fault because of Clinton. 150 years from Presidents will make mistakes and it will be fine because Bill Clinton put him cigar in some nasty hoo haa. :zzz:

    My question is how many times is the reason for war going to change? WMD, Terror, Human Rights, Saddam, and now - yes we are going to war to PROTECT THE OIL from falling into the WRONG HANDS!

    It's no wonder why people don't understand why we are at war - the Prez changes the reasons every other week it seems.

    GOP love to compare this war to WWII - i don't seem to remember reading in my history books the reason for the US going to war changing bi-weekly.

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

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually I stand corrected...they talked a good game about fighting terrorists and when the battles could be fought from 20,000 feet it was a-okay yet when the tough stuff needed to be done...well it was "not my job mon"

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]more idiot rhetoric from the libs...hey- maybe if billy bj had taken the same stance 7 years ago with Afgahnistan we wouldn't be in this mess today...ya think???[/QUOTE]

    And if Reagan hadn't armed and trained Bin Laden, Hussain and their ilk, we also wouldn't be in this mess today......

    So back and back we go, the circular blame game circling and circling........

    It is what it is, and the War in Iraq MUST be won now, regardless of how you feel about it Bit. Anything less than a complete victory makes the situation worse than it was before we went in. So think negative all you like, but you better be praying every night that we win, because losing WILL be a very very bad thing for America.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]And if Reagan hadn't armed and trained Bin Laden, Hussain and their ilk, we also wouldn't be in this mess today......

    So back and back we go, the circular blame game circling and circling........

    It is what it is, and the War in Iraq MUST be won now, regardless of how you feel about it Bit. Anything less than a complete victory makes the situation worse than it was before we went in. So think negative all you like, but you better be praying every night that we win, because losing WILL be a very very bad thing for America.[/QUOTE]

    Who are you accusing of being negative??

    BTW: as much as the libs like to throw it around and use it as a talking point, arming the Mujahadeen 25 years ago has nothing to do with the events OBL has been responsible for the past ten years....

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Who are you accusing of being negative??

    BTW: as much as the libs like to throw it around and use it as a talking point, arming the Mujahadeen 25 years ago has nothing to do with the events OBL has been responsible for the past ten years....[/QUOTE]


    Both of you, honestly.

    You, Come Back, are always ready and willing to blame past Democrats for ALL the sins of America, without admitting the responsabillity your own party holds. You do it again here, absolving Reagan of any blame for Hussain and Bin Laden......

    And Bit is plain old Negative, to a fault. I like him and like reading him, but he just doesn't seem to understand that failure in Iraq is simply not an acceptable option. Reasons, Excuses, none of that matters now. If we do not win the World will be a much much worse place than it is today, period. That is not debatable. So I'd like to see a bit more support from Bit, and a little less "I told you so" loser-ism.

    But hey, I'm just fence sitting ol' WF, so don't mind me. Stupid old me just wants to see a world where you and Bit can actually BOTH root for an American victory while BOTH acknowledging the errors we've made in the past so we won;t repeat them. Lame, I know.......

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]
    And Bit is plain old Negative, to a fault. I like him and like reading him, but he just doesn't seem to understand that failure in Iraq is simply not an acceptable option. Reasons, Excuses, none of that matters now. If we do not win the World will be a much much worse place than it is today, period. That is not debatable. So I'd like to see a bit more support from Bit, and a little less "I told you so" loser-ism. [/QUOTE]

    Warfish how can I root for victory when victory has not been defined?

    It's my opinion that Iraq is unwinnable. Whatever our goals are, they are unnreachable. Whatever progress we make will dissolve the second we turn our back. Wishing and hoping doesn't change that.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Both of you, honestly.

    You, Come Back, are always ready and willing to blame past Democrats for ALL the sins of America, without admitting the responsabillity your own party holds. You do it again here, absolving Reagan of any blame for Hussain and Bin Laden......

    [/QUOTE]

    And as I've stated numerous times, like FDR's and Truman's alignment and partnering with Stalin, Reagan was doing what had to be done at the time....

    If you want to blame Reagan for OBL and Hussien you better be ready to convict Truman and FDR for communism......hindsight is very easy and I don't blame any of the three above mentioned President's...

    clinton on the other hand did nothing...nothing when we were attacked, nothing when he had the opportunity to grab OBL and as is coming to light, nothing when the intelligence was available the AQ cells were working within the US...to my mind that is indefensible...

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,642
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know about anyone else ... but I personally support the war ... I personally believe it is a war against radical Islam (don't really know if their is a non-radical islam ... seem to be a lot of followers who don't criticize the extremism ... but since they don't participate are called moderates).

    Given the chance they would kill both you (bit) and me ... even though we may be on opposite sides of the political ideology spectrum.
    [QUOTE=bitonti]What's the soup du jour?


    Why it's the soup of the day.

    Mmmm that sounds good I'll have that.

    ---

    just when you needed a new reason to believe in the Iraq war - Bush delivers!



    [url="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/"]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/[/url][/QUOTE]

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    if it's a war against Radical Islam why did we invade and occupy the most secular, least extremist nation in the region?

    It used to be that Iraqi women didn't have to wear Burkas under Saddam. Now in the Islamic Republic of Iraq they will be lucky if their polygamist husbands don't cut their hands off.

    Oh yeah we really did a whole heck of alot to fight radical Islam.

    If that's the goal, so be it, but i'm not going to back a war against radical Islam when we are fighting it in what used to be the least radical least islamic country in the region. It makes no sense. It's like announcing a war against dog s--t and invading the public library. Maybe we should start in the dog park that is Saudi. Oh no but wait those guys are our allies. How could I forget.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]if it's a war against Radical Islam why did we invade and occupy the most secular, least extremist nation in the region?

    It used to be that Iraqi women didn't have to wear Burkas under Saddam. Now in the Islamic Republic of Iraq they will be lucky if their polygamist husbands don't cut their hands off.

    Oh yeah we really did a whole heck of alot to fight radical Islam.

    If that's the goal, so be it, but i'm not going to back a war against radical Islam when we are fighting it in what used to be the least radical least islamic country in the region. It makes no sense. It's like announcing a war against dog s--t and invading the public library. Maybe we should start in the dog park that is Saudi. Oh no but wait those guys are our allies. How could I forget.[/QUOTE]


    Bitonti - if we invaded Saudi Arabia tomorrow would you support that?

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Bitonti - if we invaded Saudi Arabia tomorrow would you support that?[/QUOTE]

    Cmon. I know the economic realities. US invading Saudi Arabia could cause a outright collapse of our oil dependent economy. As deserving as those scumbags are it's not an option.

    But just because we can't invade our economic partners, that doesn't make invading Iraq any wiser.

    Why are we clinging to a bad idea, because there are no clearly better ideas out there? I reject that on principle. The manpower/money used for these invasions could be used for 1000 other things, such as shutting the borders, research in legitimate alternatives to gasoline cars and heck even an outpost on the moon. Just because I don't support an invasion of either Iraq or Saudi that doesn't make me a sideline player. Everyone is thinking too much inside the box.

    What we have to realize is that if another 9-11 is going to happen it's going to be an inside job not an outside job. Why is everyone all jazzed up about fighting the terrorists on their turf when every time they hit us it was them sneaking through the back door??? National Security is not an ephemism for widespread conventional warfare 6000 miles away.

    It's a real phrase that has real meaning. It's about keeping Americans alive, not about wasting their lives in unwinnable nation building.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Cmon. I know the economic realities. US invading Saudi Arabia could cause a outright collapse of our oil dependent economy. As deserving as those scumbags are it's not an option.

    But just because we can't invade our economic partners, that doesn't make invading Iraq any wiser.

    Why are we clinging to a bad idea, because there are no clearly better ideas out there? I reject that on principle. The manpower/money used for these invasions could be used for 1000 other things, such as shutting the borders, research in legitimate alternatives to gasoline cars and heck even an outpost on the moon. Just because I don't support an invasion of either Iraq or Saudi that doesn't make me a sideline player. Everyone is thinking too much inside the box.

    What we have to realize is that if another 9-11 is going to happen it's going to be an inside job not an outside job. Why is everyone all jazzed up about fighting the terrorists on their turf when every time they hit us it was them sneaking through the back door??? National Security is not an ephemism for widespread conventional warfare 6000 miles away.

    It's a real phrase that has real meaning. It's about keeping Americans alive, not about wasting their lives in unwinnable nation building.[/QUOTE]


    Why prattle on and on about Saudi Arabia, then, if you think there isn't anything more we can do? Your statement, "We should start in Saudi Arabia..." is just hot air from you...that is what gets annoying. You say things that YOU don't even believe, how can you expect us to?

    Bitonti, I have always said that principled cases exist to be against the Iraq War. And you are right that our borders need to be secured, and Bush has failed on that count. Both parties don't get it, or, they care more about other things, even if they do "get it." But it's not an either/or thing. We can do both. The Iraq War has nothing to do with our lax borders, and our borders wouldn't be any better had we not invaded. Neither party will do anything about it, period. It's not as if everyone is on board for tightening them up, but that we can't afford it. There is no desire to on eother side, or, at least in the higher chambers of power on either side. And we'd still be spending almost $50 billion a year to patrol the no-fly zones and station troops in Saudi Arabia, which, apparently, pissed off terrorists too during the 12 year inter-Gulf War period. Nothing is free and we were already spendning tons of money on "Iraq" during the pre-war status quo that people wanted to perpetuate.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 08-31-2005 at 03:39 PM.

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