I could have been President when we ended WWII.... all I had to do was give the code to drop the bomb. Not difficult stuff.

I'm appauled that you draw similarites between Iraq and Vietnam..... you're right we had no business in 'Nam, but we had EVERY business to get Iraq (you show the ignorance of so many in this country). Iraq and 'Nam are about as different as night and day.

And Clinton set us up for disaster, cutting back on defense, military spending, and worried more about getting a bj than hitting BinLaden when he had the chance. And the economic growth was artificial in many ways, and it just had to come down to reality. It is pure coincidence that Bush was in office when it did (actually started before he took office, but everyone wants to blame him).

 

So I guess the best solution from now on would be to drop the bomb? Yea ... ok. Difficult decision, end of story.

Show me how. I see us attacking a 2nd world nation for no reason. Show me WMD. Oh ... wait, there aren't any. Can we say BS war? I think we can.

Yea, "fear is reason, ignorance is strength" welcome to George Bush's personal 1984. We're either with him or with Al Queda.

I seem to remember Clinton firing a few missles back in 1994 against terrorist organizations. Who cares about the man getting a blow job? I think DVPGSR will remember Bigger and Blacker when Chris Rock went off on this. Who gives a ****?

"He's not a holy man. He's just a man. A man is basically as faithful as his options. You see all these fat republicans saying how its a tragedy ... but no ones trying to blow them! Ain't no 20 year olds trying to blow Hatch!"

Now, you want to talk about cutbacks? Look at Bushs new economic plan. Look at the funding he's cut to fund the above said war. You show the ignorance of so many more in this country - that the best defense is a good offense. When you stir the hornets nest, you get stung. What do you think he's doing?

 

I tend to think that he's finally stepped up to the plate and is being proactive in protecting the US and its interests. You have offered (in essence), as have others in this thread, that the best way to handle this is to do nothing, and things will naturally get better on their own. I couldn't disagree more strongly, and it is not because of ignorance.

Let's look at the short list (tongue firmly implanted in cheek) of terrorist attacks, over the last ten years, prior to 9/11, just so I can get onto my point:

1993, World Trade Center garage bombing, NYC

1995, attack on U.S. military advisors in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

1996, Khobar Towers bombing, Saudi Arabia

1998, bombing of U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya

1998, bombing of U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

2000, bombing of U.S.S. Cole, Aden, Yemen

Now, what do all of these events have in common? In a word, it's "nothing." Yep, NOTHING demonstrably was done to any of the responsible entities in response to any of these attacks and look what happened. The attacks only increased. I would bet that in the ten years prior to the first WTC attack, terrorist action directly against the US was much more limited. It's my opinion that it was only after seeing that the US failed to use any type of force to answer any of these assaults against the US, that extremist groups felt they could continue their actions unchecked.

No, in 1998 Clinton fired missiles into Sudan and destroyed an aspirin factory in what many feel was a "wag the dog" attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky matter. But, in (edit typo to 1998) Clinton did send cruise missiles into Iraq in an attempt to get Hussein. Ironically, in his speech justifying that attack, Clinton offered the same reasons that Bush ultimately did for this current war. The funny part is that there were no protests from the left then, as compared to now, despite the nearly identical rationales for force. Before you say it, I'll acknowledge that a few cursory missiles being lobbed into Iraq is not the same as the full scale military buildup and action as has been taken now. But, after all of the recent years of inaction (I won't say it, but go ahead, look at the dates, and guess who might have been in office at the time), it's about time that the US finally started to look after itself.

 

Clinton got a phone call from his defense secretary with substantial, credible sources on BinLaden's exact whereabouts that had a 1 hour window. He had already line the appropriate forces to take him out. Clinton, being the consumate professional he was, was golfing. And when the call came in (on the secure line which, for any other person, means urgent), he was too busy with his chip shot to wory about it. Clinton had the audacity to refuse the call that could have given the go ahead to kill that animal, and he refused the call (he really did refuse all calls while he was doing anything recreational). This was in early 1999. It's in the book "Derelection of Duty" written by one of his aides (forgot the name). Oh, he also once lost his card with the Presidential code for the nukes. Yeah, he was really watching out for those terrorists.

 

Ok, point taken. Good response, Fast.

 

The biggest problem I see our country with is that people want good looking, smiling faces who are attractive and have congenial personalities to make our laws. Look at California..... looks like Arnold has a good shot at governor. But the people forget the fact that theoretically, someone with no personality and not very attractive is usually the person who will consume himself/herself with the job at hand and doing it to the best of their ability. I'll be the first one to admit Bush has the personality of a rock, and Clinton was terrific in the spotlight. I'll be honest.... the uglier, less personable the canditate is for President, the more I like him. Strictly business, and that is what we need ALL the time. Dole was the same way, and he got trounced by Clinton.

 

I'd like to say one more thing. These were terrorist attacks - not attacks carried out by a nation or government. This is where the difference is between the war on terror and the war against Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 15 of the hijackers were Saudi (supposedly our friends). I will always condemn this war for ever taking place. I will never support Bush for what he did there and I hope NATO and the rest fo the world let him have it.

 

And this is where you are blind, naieve, or both. Yes those were terrorist attacks carried out by an organization not a country. However in order for such an organization to exist there needs to be a nation that supports them...a place for them to base their operations. Afghanistan was one such place where the Taliban allowed Al Quada to hole up there and shout "Jihad!" Iraq was another nation that had a viable chemical and biological weapons program and at one time a viable nuclear porgram. We found terrorists that had commited past acts in Europe that were hiding in Baghdad with the full knowledge of the Hussein regime, there were (and probably still are) terrorists groups in Northern Iraq that were linked to Al Quada. You did not want Iraq to become another Afghanistan nor let the WMD they had fall into the hands of terrorists...something that after 9/11 had become a very real possibility. Atleast Bush was a man enough President to actively go after these uncivilized human beings...afterall the complacency of the Clinton Administration got us nowhere.

 

Yes, in 1990. Not now. And since when are we the only nation allowed to have weapons programs? I remember when www.rootingoutevil.com was up and had thier MISSION USA going on from Canada:

We have selected the US as our first priority based on criteria provided by the Bush administration. According to those criteria, the most dangerous states are those run by leaders who:

1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;
2) ignore due process at the United Nations;
3) refuse to sign and honour international treaties; and
4) have come to power through illegitimate means.

The current US administration fulfills all these criteria. And so, again following Bush’s guidelines, Rooting Out Evil is demanding that his administration allow immediate and unfettered access to international weapons inspectors to search out their caches of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

On the weekend of February 22/23, the team will attempt to cross into the United States on a mission of peace, and will be greeted on the US side by Americans who favour true global cooperation, an end to weapons of mass destruction, and a regime change in the US at the next election. The team will then attempt to inspect a US site suspected of housing weapons of mass destruction.



funny, I dont remember them finding any, but ok.

 

Neither did they find evidence that Iraq destroyed the weapons they admitted having only a few years ago. So where did they go? Until you (or someone else) can prove where the unaccounted WMD are I will continue to assume they are well hidden inside Iraq. I would hate to think they reached the hands of terrorists already.

And as for the Web site you listed...I am sure it is a 100% liberal, far left group that distorts facts for their own personal gain.

This right here is perfect proof. And when has the US used WMD? Oh that's right to end WWII. The US is probably the most responsible with their WMD and has the largest amount.