|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 26, 2005 18:04:04 GMT -5
that it's beyond belief that she has some followers, many dont support here though, i wonder why...
shes said some pretty stupid things: "The U.S is not worth dying for"...THEN WHY WAS YOUR DAMN FUCKIN SON IN THE ARMY?? When one joins the army without a draft, one must accept that one may go to war at any given time!!!! If there was a draft, then the story is completly different. Typical dems not seeing the larger picture, using ur dead son as justification that the war was wrong is INVALID. People die in wars, dumbass, and noone forced him to join. Also, there are families with dead children bc of the war that still support the war and advocate their other children to join too if they wish. Why should Sheehans voice be any louder? Learn the fact first, woman, than complain....what a complete tosser...plus the war is technically over, we're fighting insurgents. Surely we cant pull out now. WHY CANT ANYONE SEE THAT!!??!! Iraq would be ALOT worse and even more unstable, we need to pull out when the time is right, when the Iraqis have a gov and can fight for themselves. that time is not now...SEE THE LARGER PICTURE...most dems cant. Nor can they see the larger picture that Iraq will be a better place when this struggle ends, in everyones eyes (bar the terrorists) ---- 9/26/05, MSNBC:
WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son’s death in Iraq to spur the antiwar movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.
Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.
Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was handcuffed, then led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, “The whole world is watching.”
Others who were arrested also cooperated with police. Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.
Park Police Sgt. L.J. McNally said Sheehan and the others would be taken to a processing center where they would be fingerprinted and photographed, then given a ticket and released. The process would take several hours, he said.
Sheehan’s 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Iraq, last year. She attracted worldwide attention last month with her 26-day vigil outside President Bush’s Texas ranch.
Several hundred protesters in D.C. Sheehan was among several hundred demonstrators who marched around the White House on Monday and then stopped in front and began singing and chanting “Stop the war now!” Organizers had said some planned to be arrested.
The demonstration is part of a broader antiwar effort on Capitol Hill organized by United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group. Representatives from antiwar groups were meeting Monday with members of Congress to urge them to work to end the war and bring home the troops.
The protest following a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.
On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.
“I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters, ‘Don’t be a group of unthinking lemmings.’ It’s not pretty,” said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. The antiwar demonstrations “can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope.”
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Sept 26, 2005 18:49:28 GMT -5
TAM typing , ppl confused by our avatars m8..
1st off, I have no judgement on a mum morning for her son... period...
2ND - fact - anyone knows that the middle east is now more unstable.. double edged sword, the longer we are in there the more we are targets world wide.. we can't pull out cos civil war will break out.. NO ONE will wanna come and help us out either.., a given...
3RD future of iraq ? at best we are looking at an islamic state.. democracy cannot and will not be imposed on anyone.. neocons are wrong with their theory.. democracy happens when it is created intentionally...
4TH - currently, as per washington post today, powers that be are looking to systematically downsize the us troops and continue to work on training iraqis...historically it is better to train and let the natives do an OK job rather than outsiders try to do it perfectly was the jist of the article.. time will tell ...
we will be left with a deficit $$$$$$$$$$ & there will be hell to pay..
|
|
|
Post by castlecraver on Sept 26, 2005 19:23:54 GMT -5
I found it funny that Drudge's headling this afternoon read "Cindy Sheehan Arrested at White House in Cunning Stunt"
Seeing as there's nothing "cunning" about a sit-in protest in front of the White House, it's obvious he was making an subtle, underhanded jab at Sheehan designed to conjur up a very insulting, vulgar phrase. Of course, we've never known the transparently conservative Drudge (although some say he claims to be Libertarian.. ha!) to show any sort of regard for accuracy or journalistic integrity, so I shouldn't be so shocked.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 26, 2005 21:53:54 GMT -5
Tam, im gonna counter ur points cos i have nothing better to do haha
1.) True, its only natural to mourn and feel angry, but its wrong to take it out on other ppl...she has to respect her sons decision to join the army and that he died for helping a good casue...reasons may be misguided, but the cause is 100% good...THE DICATOR HAS BEEN REMOVED!!!
2.) You kind of contradicted urself by saying that we should pull out bc the more targets we will be worldwide, and then saying that we cant pull out bc it would create a civil war. you may be 100% on both aspects, but we CAN NOT pull out untill we are ready to leave Iraq in the hands of the ready Iraqis. Also, i'd rather be hated in the M.I then a civil war errupting in Iraq. We will still have support from the likes of: UK, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia etc and those are the countries that REALLY matter, granted every country is important, but id rather have Iran hate us over the UK...plus Iran is even worse than Iraq was, and we have PROOF of that...Bush was right in labeling the axis of evil nations (but thats another issue)
3.)Correct, it wont be a democracy unless thats exactly what the Iraqis want. However, Iraq will be better no matter bc the Iraqis have a choice. An oppresive regime is gone, any other type of gov will be better. Saddam is a criminal, mass murderer, who deserves the death penalty...its called CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY and SADDAM IS GUILTY
4.) I dont really see the point of this point, if you will, but i do agree time will tell
actually, time will tell on everything stated above...that's why you have to stick with it...pull out now and its an absolute failure...stay with it and make a few more sacrifices we will prosper...
Basically, the protesters will not sway bush. They have been protesting since the war began in 2002. And think about it, who would you rather trust: The presidential adminstration, military generals, advisors, troops etc or every day (some ignorant) protesting civilians? I pick the former (despite some mistakes theyve made)...yes the public have a chance and right to protest, and they are, but they wont be successful...
you forget, every war brings protesters...why? cos noone wants violence
***We've tried to deal with Saddam dimplomatically since atleast 1990, it has failed, 13yrs+ is too long to wait, violence was the only answer at this stage...the U.S should have captured him when they had the chance with Bush Sr during the Gulf War****
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 26, 2005 22:06:06 GMT -5
Pulling out in Iraq would be grave danger to all of us if we pulled out of Iraq
Resurgence of World Wide Terrorism.. IRAN nuclear arms would be accelerated.. Civil War would erupt in Iraq.. Iran would control the gulf which would create a war that makes the Iraqi war look small
(I'll have an article on the above soon) -- The speakers to todays protest: Sheehan, Nader, Jesse Jackson.
Ask yourself, would you really want these people to be political advisors to the president?
of course not, they don't know what they are talking about...they are loopy people who dont care about you, or even america as a country
They see america as the enemy...do they have a plan to fight the war on terror? no, they dont see the seriousness of this war on terror...these protests are irresponsible...we cant have half the country against us in war time...morale lowers and the enemy sees that we are vulnerable as a nation. this is pathetic. you rally around the leader in hope that he will be successful (of course u have to be careful with this menatally cos we cant have a tyrrant like atm, but for this situation, being united would most def. help us rather than hurt...)
again, more organized article comin up shortly
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 26, 2005 22:21:26 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/click on Bill O'Reilly talking points...its a video...this is good for roughly one day, maybe a few more if ur lucky lol but its everything i wish i could type while watchin on tv...too fast etc but its all valid...yeh yeh i know O'Rielly is far to the right, whatever...but u need to acknowledge the other side just as i have with the dems... im reccommend u seriously watch that 2min!! clip....then come back and talk to me
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 26, 2005 22:40:02 GMT -5
one last thing...Bill Orielly vs Donahue...clip on foxnews about this too, heres the transcript (i reccommend watching the 7min clip...VERY intense debate): ---
PHIL DONAHUE, FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: Let's understand what's happening here. Once again we have a woman who got to be just a little too famous for the people who support this war. A minority of the American population, by the way.
And so the effort to marginalize this woman is underway. And you're helping out.
O'REILLY: I'm — I'm the leader of the pack.
DONAHUE: You're suggesting...
O'REILLY: I'm the leader of the pack.
DONAHUE: First of all, Cindy Sheehan is one tough mother. And nothing you say or anyone else is going to slow her down.
O'REILLY: No, that's fine. She has a right to do that.
DONAHUE: You can't hurt her. She's already taken the biggest punch in the nose that a woman can take. She's lost a son.
O'REILLY: OK.
DONAHUE: She's lost a child.
O'REILLY: But look, I'm not putting words in her mouth.
DONAHUE: And by the way, she is going to be at the center of one of the largest rallies since the Vietnam War: proud, patriotic Americans who will show up in Washington this week for one of the most massive, largest demonstrations, protest demonstrations...
O'REILLY: And we'll cover it.
DONAHUE: ... right outside the president's window.
O'REILLY: And we'll cover it.
DONAHUE: And FOX is in the business of saying that this woman is somehow saying un-American things. Hyperbole.
O'REILLY: No, no, no, no.
DONAHUE: Listen to what she's saying.
O'REILLY: Nobody said she said anything un-American. We say that her positions are radical. And they are radical.
DONAHUE: Let me tell you what's radical. What's radical is to send more Americans to die in this war, which is a monumental blunder...
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: ... by a president who swaggered us into it with, by the way, the at least tacit approval of the Democratic Party. There's a lot of sin to go around here.
O'REILLY: What's radical...
DONAHUE: You want to send more people to this war? Is that your position?
O'REILLY: If we cut and run out of there like you want to do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now.
DONAHUE: We're going to cut and run anyway, Bill.
O'REILLY: Well, that's your opinion.
DONAHUE: It's not my opinion. American military leaders have said we're going to draw down, beginning next year. The reason they said that...
O'REILLY: There's a difference between drawing down and cutting and running.
DONAHUE: Well...
O'REILLY: You're a cut and run guy, and I don't want my family in danger because of you.
DONAHUE: You want to stay the course, don't you? You don't...
O'REILLY: Look, here's what I want to do. I want to give the Iraqis a chance to train their army so they can defeat these people who are trying to turn it into a terrorist state.
DONAHUE: Bill...
O'REILLY: That's what I want to do.
DONAHUE: Bill...
O'REILLY: Go.
DONAHUE: Iraq was not a terrorist state.
O'REILLY: Oh, no.
(CROSSTALK)
DONAHUE: I hope I don't patronize you for thinking that.
O'REILLY: He was a swell guy. He was...
DONAHUE: Saddam — Saddam was a bastard. But he was our bastard.
O'REILLY: He wasn't anybody's...
DONAHUE: Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand in the '80s.
O'REILLY: Well, that's true (ph).
DONAHUE: You saw the pictures. Now listen. Listen. You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill.
O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted in the Army. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
DONAHUE: Very good. Very good. Congratulations. Be proud.
O'REILLY: Yes, and he's a patriot, so don't denigrate his service or I'll boot you right off the set.
DONAHUE: I'm not — I'm not...
O'REILLY: That boy made a decision to serve his country. Do not denigrate him or you're out of here.
DONAHUE: I'm not Jeremy Glick, Billy. You can't intimidate me.
O'REILLY: That's right. A little bit more intelligent than he is.
DONAHUE: I'm not somebody you can come and just do all your...
O'REILLY: Don't tell me I wouldn't send my kids.
DONAHUE: Loud doesn't mean right.
O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted. You don't know what you're talking about.
DONAHUE: All right. You — your nephew is not your kid. You are...
O'REILLY: He's my blood.
DONAHUE: You are part of a loud group of people who want to prove they're tough and send other people's kids to war to make the case.
O'REILLY: You have no clue about how to fight a war on terror or how to defend your country. You are clueless. So is Ms. Sheehan. For Ms. Sheehan to say that the insurgents have a right to kill Americans, and you're shaking her hand? You ought to just walk away.
DONAHUE: How many more young men and women are you going to send to have their arms and legs blown off...
O'REILLY: This is a war on terror.
DONAHUE: ... so that you can be tough and point at people in a kind of cowardly way...
O'REILLY: No.
DONAHUE: ... take people like Jeremy Glick, who comes on to, in memory of his parents...
O'REILLY: Oh, bull.
DONAHUE: ... and you go off on him...
O'REILLY: Jeremy Glick is...
DONAHUE: ... like a big bully. Do you feel that you have to be — you have to feel sorry about that.
O'REILLY: Mr. Donahue, with all due respect...
DONAHUE: Have you apologized to him for that?
O'REILLY: Baloney. Jeremy Glick came on this program...
DONAHUE: You know what I'm talking about?
O'REILLY: ... and accused the president of the United States...
DONAHUE: Oh, and you had...
O'REILLY: ... of orchestrating 9/11. That's what he did, right after 9/11 happened. Do you know what the pain that brought the families who lost people in 9/11?
DONAHUE: This war...
O'REILLY: You buy into left-wing propaganda...
DONAHUE: This war...
O'REILLY: ... and you're a mouthpiece for it. Go ahead.
DONAHUE: This war is not fair to the American troops. This war is unconstitutional. This war turned its back on the people who framed the most fabulous document in the history of civilization. I speak of the United States Constitution.
O'REILLY: Why — why isn't the Democratic...
DONAHUE: This — we have — by the way...
O'REILLY: ... Party speaking that way?
DONAHUE: I'm sorry that it isn't. I am. But let's understand something.
O'REILLY: Are we all — are we all so misguided?
DONAHUE: Twenty-one — excuse me. Twenty-one Democrats in the Senate voted against this war, as well as Jeffords, an independent. And may the Lord shine his blessings down upon Lincoln Chaffee...
O'REILLY: All right. I'm going to give you...
DONAHUE: ... the only — I'm almost finished, Billy.
O'REILLY: I'm going to give you the last word.
DONAHUE: I'm almost finished.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: Lincoln Chaffee, the only Republican in the Senate to vote against this war. We should be building statues to all these people.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: October 2002, they stood up to a president and they knew that, first of all, only Congress can declare war. Why is that unimportant to you, Billy?
O'REILLY: It's not — I'm not...
DONAHUE: Why can't you become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims to be?
O'REILLY: A loud voice...
DONAHUE: And stand behind the Constitution and insist that we never go to war again without the approval — and...
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: ... the United States Congress.
O'REILLY: If they want to take action, they can take action. Now I want to say something, I'm going to give you the last word. The Iraq war is not something that I embrace. It absolutely could be a tactical error.
DONAHUE: Well, you should...
O'REILLY: All right?
DONAHUE: It's hard to know this, Billy.
O'REILLY: Listen to me and then you're going to have the last word. Not something I embrace, could be a tactical error, optional war and we have not waged it the way I had hoped we would wage it.
DONAHUE: But what?
O'REILLY: But we are in the war on terror.
DONAHUE: You want kids to die (ph).
O'REILLY: We are in the war on terror. Our cause is noble.
DONAHUE: It has nothing to do with the war on terror.
O'REILLY: Yes, it does. And if you don't understand geopolitics and you don't understand Iraq would be a terrorist state if we pulled out of there...
DONAHUE: The mistake...
O'REILLY: ... you don't know anything.
DONAHUE: ... it was poorly planned...
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
DONAHUE: ... poorly executed, but Bill O'Reilly wants to send more kids to fight and die. We've already had almost 2,000. Just let me have the last word. In the last year, two things have doubled. The number of dead American troops in Iraq have doubled, from over 1,000 to almost 2,000. You know what else doubled, Billy? The price of Halliburton's stock.
O'REILLY: All right.
DONAHUE: From $33 to $66. That doesn't shame you? That doesn't make you wonder?
O'REILLY: I'm not obsessed by Halliburton stock.
DONAHUE: If this is an enterprise that is worth the support of the American people? We need you at this rally on Saturday, Billy.
O'REILLY: I don't care. I'm not going to be there. DONAHUE: We need you out in front of it to be — to protest.
O'REILLY: Not going to be at the rally.
DONAHUE: There is no democracy without dissent.
O'REILLY: Not going to protest.
DONAHUE: You should be proud of people who stand up and dissent.
O'REILLY: I am. I respect your...
DONAHUE: A lot of fine men went and died to give me that freedom.
O'REILLY: All right. You got it. You got it. I respect your dissent. I think you're way off in your analysis of the war on terror.
DONAHUE: You want to send more people to die in Iraq? Is that — is that your position?
O'REILLY: I want to win the war in Iraq.
DONAHUE: Win. What does win mean? Tell me what win means. O'REILLY: It means those people have a chance at democracy. I've got to go.
DONAHUE: How long is that going to take?
O'REILLY: Got to go.
DONAHUE: How long is that going to take?
O'REILLY: Those people deserve a chance at freedom. Thank you for coming in.
|
|
|
Post by castlecraver on Sept 26, 2005 23:05:47 GMT -5
Classic O'Reilly. For being a pompous, ill-informed right-wing blowhard, I have to give the guy credit. He's an absolute master at bringing people on his program and making himself the center of debate, distracting from the issue at hand and completely negating his "guests'" opportunity to make their points. He toes the Murdoch line so well that he's able to keep a cool head and make his "guests" seem like idiots -- not by refuting their arguments with any rational rebuttal, but by spinning the conversation to project arguments as attacks, and frustrating his "guests" with baseless assertions that his blind followers typically eat up.
He's good at what he does, unfortunatley, what he does can't be called fair journalism or even responsible punditry.
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Sept 27, 2005 17:11:04 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/click on Bill O'Reilly talking points...its a video...this is good for roughly one day, maybe a few more if ur lucky lol but its everything i wish i could type while watchin on tv...too fast etc but its all valid...yeh yeh i know O'Rielly is far to the right, whatever...but u need to acknowledge the other side just as i have with the dems... im reccommend u seriously watch that 2min!! clip....then come back and talk to me this is tam typingO'rielly breeds intolerance and just fucking scares me... nuff said... I did not contradict myself sir, at all... I said above in my post that the whole iraq situation is a double edged sword aka a LOSE-LOSE situation... it is... anyone in intell knows this...
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Oct 7, 2005 6:17:18 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for the WMD's to turn up [Looks at watch]
I mean, that WAS the point, wasn't it? Sure seemed like it at the time....
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 7, 2005 18:31:42 GMT -5
-U.N said that if Saddam went against any mandates, then they would heavily support military action...U.N mandates were ignored by Saddam-->WAR -Inspectors wern't allowed to inspect where they wanted to -WMD (which he may have had anyway--could have sold/destroyed/hide them v well in his under ground bunkers) -Saddam is a criminal with crimes such as crimes against humanity and is (was) one of the many dicators that need(ed) to be taken down ^These are just some of the reasons, there are more i cant think of right now, and just 1 of these reasons is enough to go to war alone....so even if he didnt have WMD, the war was justified
*Bush admin only hyped up the WMD argument bc that would appeal to the public more....the possible threat of a mushroom cloud over D.C would seem more immediate and significant for the american public compared to any of the other reasons.
The plan for Iraq is to train the Iraqi's to fight for themselves and then take over. When this happens, we will start pulling out. Should a democracy evolve, then theres a democratic nation between Syria and Iran and thus will distable terrorism in the middle east--so if this works, its a v good plan (cos we wouldnt have to fight Iran/Syria, which would be next---and rightly so---so by going to war with Iraq, we're possibly preventing 2 other wars)
imo, Syria+Iran are ALOT worse than Iraq and we should have fought them first, but again, should this Iraq plan work, we wont have to--brilliant (but it needs to work first...)
|
|
|
Post by Superguiller. on Oct 7, 2005 19:31:42 GMT -5
Innocent people are dying, man, on account of lies. That's it. You can't justify that. It's a mistake, admit it.
|
|
|
Post by lyla on Oct 9, 2005 4:33:03 GMT -5
these are my random rambles and responses to various posts...
im not familiar with US journalists...but the above excahnge was interesting.....i dont think the reilly guy got it tho, when the other was saying something along the lines of iraq not being about the war on terror.......which i agree with.
while WMD incredibly dangerous, and could be used by terrorists, they are 2 seperate issues. iraq is a nation, so the war is against a proper nation as opposed to terrorists there. getting rid of terrorism wasnt given as a reason to go to war
additionally, saddams removal is very much a by product of entering iraq on the premise of getting rid of WMD, rather then entering straight to remove saddam. which is an important distinction to make. because it then appears that while failing the iniatal goal, cos no WMDs were ever found, the harping on about how the US freed iraqis from an evil dictator just seems like a poy to divert from the fact the purpose of entering iraq kinda was a failure.
and the whole iran and syria situation. well good luck on that considering you are still engaged in iraq and have not the military resources or financial resources to start any more wars.
and it would be a lot better if you focused on domestic policy and the welfare of americans. im guessing that more people die of cancer and disease than terrorism, so that might be a better 'war' to fight. this would concurrently be a positive tactic in defusing the terrorist situation who might lay off cos they wont be so fucking annoyed with the US, because if you've noticed, they are shitting bricks over US foreign policy. so if you guys lay low on international affairs and NOT do controverisal things like start wars and call everyone who isnt your ally 'evil' then MAYBE, just MAYBE, actual peace (as opposed to killing everyone and then saying its peace, when really people are just in fear of US military massacring them) MIGHT have a chance to develop.
its a long and complicated process, and hardly the 'cause and effect' policies that people love because you can see immediate results......but the fact remains, the more violence deployed by the US, the more others will retaliate. i mean they'll never entirely stop, but perhaps it'll lessen to pre sept 11 kind of terrorism that was sort of manageable.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 9, 2005 9:32:03 GMT -5
lyla, you seem to advocate giving into the terrorists...
The israelies, the iraqis etc dont hate us, but the terrorists do. It would be different if Iraqis turned agains the U.S....but they arnt and wont, thus showing the majority support what we are doing.
Saddam was a terrorist, wasnt he?
And any country that isnt our ally is for the most part our enemy...(not in all cases, but most)...think about it
Since WWII the U.S transitioned from an isolationist country to a country that always intervenes....and correctly so
some country needs to help the rest of the world, and that role belongs to the superpower (ala AMERICA)...The U.N doesnt work, so the U.S has to step up....
Do something for me, Lyla....imagine that the U.S never got involved in any foriegn affairs....think how incredibly bad the world would be in: -Israel/Palastine conflict = even worse -Taliban killing citizens in Afghan. -Saddam killing citizens in Iraq and starting wars with other countries -Terrorists free to organize wherever they want, and do whatever they want -Every nation would have nuclear weapons ^-thus terrorists would have nuclear weapons too -Asia and middle east would be in trouble bc the U.S wouldnt give money and aid for the natural disasters that have occured down the years (including the earthquake yesterday)
this list goes on and on and on and on....and is only from recent years...
you may think the world is chaotic now, but just think what it would be like if the U.S didnt do anything.
and, btw, we didnt start any war....Saddam brought it on himself by defying U.N mandates, crimes against humanity etc etc
There is nothing wrong with pre-emptive strikes...why should we be attacked AGAIN to justify it? There are things we DONT KNOW about the Iraqi conflict bc the GOV DOESNT TELL US EVERYTHING....so who knows, Saddam may have been a real threat...but thats neither here nor there...
**If the U.S got attacked again (and i believe something will happen this month) EVERYONE will blame Bush for not preventing it...like months after 9/11....he cant win**
** What if Bush invaded Afghan before 9/11 bc we believe Al-qaeda was going to attack us with planes? Same reaction as the Iraqi war is getting....noone would believe him. And since it would have worked, there would have been no attack and thus no proof, so people would be skeptical**
are dems really blind? Sure, the short term may look bad, but look at the long term when fighting terrorism
of course terrorism will never be defeated, but we can, and are, getting it to a bearable level...
********* The terrorists are now centered in Iraq...this is their only real base atm...they HAVE to win this war. If we win the war, the terrorists for the most part are over...they are running out of places to organize their camps and cells....so yeh, Iraq does indeed tie into the War On Terror by creating a concentration of terrorists in 1 country that may be defeated before too long...great strategy if it works... **********
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Oct 9, 2005 9:44:28 GMT -5
2 more things:
1.) "The plan is to train the Iraqi forces to defend themselves. That country will become a democracy, thereby destabilizing terrorism in the middle east. That seems to be the plan. To be fair, every American should give the president a little more time to win this very complicated war in Iraq."
2.) Dan Senor, former spokesman for coalition forces in Iraq, is the host of the documentary "Saddam on Trial," which airs this weekend on Fox News. He said the program breaks important new ground. "It's very powerful stuff, and Saddam is going to come off as worse than we thought. Iraqis are going to be talking about mass graves, torture chambers, rape rooms and torture in their own words. This is the first time an Arab despot is going to be held accountable for his crimes by his fellow citizens in a court of law. People in other Arab countries may start to question the invincibility of their own leaders." The Factor suggested that the verdict in the case is a foregone conclusion. "This is like the Nuremberg trials. There's so much evidence against the man, he's not going to get off."
yeh, real good guy to have as a leader of a "proper nation"....wtf...are you kidding me? Its better in Iraq right now with the war going on then it ever was under Saddam...people are blind to what life was like under him, read pt 2 againt: mass graves, rape, torture...ffs democrats...
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Oct 10, 2005 10:30:35 GMT -5
No one's saying Iraq was better under Saddam. They are saying that the "might makes right" ideology and pre-emptive attack strategies that characterise this war have been backed up by reasons which were obviously designed to get the people on-side for the war and which have all proven to be utter bollocks. The fact that two years after the invasion a majority of Americans still think that Iraq was linked to 911 is a riduclous statistic - and the Bush administration is content to let people go on believing this fallacy because it keeps them shut up. The man is a vagina. Sorry, he is.
|
|