Well said.;)

Tom in your long winded posting to be quite honest you are saying nothing! Now since that is the game,

I will read into your Posting OK!! People like you are well known over in Asia for the tours and wanting Sex with 8 and 9 year old Kids but that’s ok for a Liberal all Perversions are accepted. And is another meaning of the term.

Now show me one reason you are qualified to speak out on the Middle-East situation Iraq mainly? And eating a box of Dromedary Dates is not a qualifying point, Sorry!

Now myself; I currently have Equipment there helping to guard our Troops! What the hell have you done??????? Or ever done??? Besides Criticize without any first hand knowledge of the situation.

I await your revelation maybe a couple hits of sunshine acid would help.

Steve,
You never seem to amaze me.;)

Wow I havn't seen any sunshine acid since the early 70s. I friend of mine did the light shows for Jefferson Airplane and used to give private shows in our studio. Now those were some fun times.:D

What qualifies me to speak out about anything I want is that I am an American citizen. That right is still in the constitution unless Ashcroft figured out how to remove it already.

How does your dictionary define "conflict of interest"? That my friend is one of the biggest points the liberals are complaining about. Why is it the people drumming for war the most stand to make money from it? Even if they have other reasons it just makes it all seem suspect when they meet in secret, make claims they are unable or unwilling to back up, and have lost the faith of the whole world. No wonder you are so scared; polls are dropping faster than Bill Clinton's pants. Better not order that new boat. Might not get to cash that fat check you were expecting.;)

You and the shrub have a lot in common; name calling, beligerance, go out of your way to alienate the world, can't string two sentences together, have your own dictionary. Have you seen http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ ? Maybe you two could share dictionaries.

I hope you still consider this just entertainment. You were looking for someone to banter with, weren't you?

Tom so that “qualifies” you to be counterfactual?? But again that seems to be standard criterion for a Liberal or in your case;

A communal idiosyncrasy!

Tom I got an Idea for you guys on the wrong side! Why don’t you simply pass some laws making all Crimes Legal hell why not? Be a real Liberal !!!!!!!!!

And post birth abortions legal say until the kid was 12 years old!

Think of the fun.

We could try a pilot program in California and check the results in 5 years!

I have been thinking about Donzi38's statements that Liberals are in a different world. That might actually explain a lot, just like the book "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus" explains. I think that Liberals and Conservatives are entirely different thinkers and that is the basis of the conflict between them. They are in a way, from two opposite worlds, yet dependant on each other to make our shared world what it is. I'll try here to discribe what I see as the differences, where we need to come together, and why.

Liberal thinkers are the artists, the musicians, the creatives, the dreamers, the inventors, the optimists, the idealists, the out of the box thinkers. They invision a utopian world where everybody lives in peace and harmony even when the "real" world shows no sign of it. Their anthem is "Imagine" by John Lennon and their heroes are the great peace activists, Jesus, Krishna, Mahatma Ghandi, Marting Luther King, and those who dream of a perfect world.

The liberal thinker is the guy you take your boat to that looks at the same thing you have been looking at for weeks and instantly sees the perfect creative solution. You look at it and think "it is so obvious, why didn't I think of that." Problem is he is flaky, poor at business, and has no concept of getting it done on time. Drives you crazy.

Conservative thinkers are the businessmen, the accountants, the the pragmatists, the steady, the responsible, the "adults" of the bunch. They envision a world that is controlled and predictable. They don't want a theme song, that is a waste of thought.Their heroes are MacArthur, Henry Ford, great generals and corporate leaders, and those who are "serious" about making things happen, on time, within budget, and organized.

You can't take your boat to a conservative thinker, because the boating business is too hard to make a profit in. The conservative thinker is the guy you go to when your business is messed up. He looks at the numbers, talks about objectives, puts together a business plan, suggests you go into a business you are not passionate about because it makes more business sense. Drives you crazy.

All of us have a combination of both liberal and conservative thinking in us. If we were 100% liberal we would die because we couldn't afford to eat. If we were 100% conservative we would die of boredom. The world works the same. Without the liberal thinkers we would have no art, no music, no movies, no new models of toys, everything would just stay the same. Without the conservative thinkers we would have nothing finished, anarchy, lawlessness, a disorganized mess. What we need is a combination of liberal and conservative both within ourselves and within society as a whole.

My ideal would be to have the liberal thinkers dream up the utopian world and write the specifications, yet have the conservative thinkers plan and impliment the dream. Some conservatives ideal seems to be kill all the liberals, but then you get a world nobody wants to live in. If we would just learn to cherish the best traits from both sides while trying to peacefully compromise on the not so best traits, the world just might turn out to be a great place for all of us.

Saddam's human rights abuses:
 

This is a factual document prepared by the Commonwealth Office in London. It details just some of the Human rights abuses Saddam Hussein routinely imposes as the dictator of Iraq since 1979. Imagine living in this country.

It amazes me how Americans can go out and make fools of themselves saying things like "no war for oil". These people have absolutely no knowlege what this impending war is really about!


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/photos/strawdossier.pdf

Utopia
 

Tom - Utopia on the planet earth does not has not and cannot exhist. That is why conservatives get so annoyed with the left. Because they are not realistic. Stop smokin up the gange and think straight. If there were no bad people in the world then there would be no good people. If no one committed crimes then there would be no such thing as immoral behavior thus people who behave morally responsibly would not be rewarded for it, and there would be no reason to feel good about yourself or to set goals or to seek prosperity. Humanity would be very boring in this utopian world don't you think? I would like to see a less violent world for sure. It makes my stomach turn when I read documents like the link I posted above. Torture is disgusting evil that I can think of on our planet.

I do agree with (to the extent that it is good to have a combination of creative and realistic), and read your last post with interest. That diversity is what makes this country so great. But it is certainly annoying to see people too lazy to do some research before they open their mouths in protest. If you stop and talk to some of these people, they don't even know the history of Saddam Hussein.

As I write this Mr. Blix is speaking live stating that Iraq is completely in non compliance. That should be on no surprise to anyone.

I agree Saddam is a horrible person. I think there is no disagreement anywhere about that. The debate seems to be about how best to deal whith him and other bad guys while still holding the rest of the world together.

What bothers me a whole lot also is that even the "good" muslims treat women so horribly. Saddam's mistreatment of women doesn't seem that far away from the norm. I wish someone of the Muslim faith would explain to us why they believe women are treated so horribly by all of them.

While I agree that a Utopian hope for the world is way beyond unrealistic, those advocating it are neither stupid or evil for wishing it. Those who have chosen to protest, (I am not one of them so who am I to defend them other than nobody else wants to take their side here) are not extremest utopian dreamers with no brains or attention to what is going on. Last I read they are made up of an amazingly diverse cross section of society; both young and very old, clergy and athiests, veterans, doctors, etc. The peace activists from the Vietnam era were mostly made up of students and leftists, but this time that group is only a part of a much wider group. To totally discount what they are saying is just as foolish as for them to deny the logic coming from the other side.

Tom, I think that if you pay attention to the real movers and shakers behind the "peace" movement you will find it is just the same old Republican haters and rent-a-mobs that seem to populate the vocal left today. Case in point-none of these groups popped up when Bill was slinging Tomohawks and talking about another invasion to clean things up. This is still being driven by politics and will be until the fur starts to fly, then the true peace people will be left and likely small in number. I wonder what they would say if Tel Aviv was a large smoking hole??

I stand by my Post #107

Very well said.

Well guys I think we had a great time and generated over 2000 reads, but we are being pre-empted by another thread. They have fresh faces and we are just the same tired old guys still duking it out.;)

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...threadid=42033

Mike,
Are you feeling better? I am almost back to 100% myself, what a virus we had.

Steve,
#107 was your best post, you should stand by it.

Ted,
Politics and money seems to drive everything any ore. I don't have enough money or the energy to get political, so we are consigned to arguing together about things we seem to have no say in anyway. It is fun sometimes though.

Donzi38ZX,
I wish I knew your name. Yours were always the best thought out posts. Wish I could have done as well.

Allan,
What was very well said?;) You have been my favorite adversary even though I think we both agree way more than not. You tried to call it dead and it kept going, wonder if I will have any more success.;) ;)

catmando,
Sorry I let you down. With only two of us it was hard to hold up the side. It was fun being on your team.

Everybody else,
Sorry if I missed anyone. It is great to see that us boaters can talk so passionately and still be friends. And to think non-boaters think we are only interested in boats and boobs.;) ;) Well that is true, in the summer non of us have time for this.;)

Yes Tom I'm finally better (thanks to the dose of Zithromax I had to strongarm my liberal doctor into giving me).

Wait Tom don't go yet. I haven't converted you to conservative yet......Here's some more reading for you.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/wee...tor.guest.html

NO
 

I'm referring to all the links that are below his blurb. Particularly the UK articles.


Steve - post # 107 is great and I nominate you for the presidential ticket once George Bush finishes his SECOND term. It should be a smooth presidency for you by the way, cause the Bush administration should have everthing running like a fine oiled machine by then.

George Bush Sr's Commentary last night
 

Did anyone see George Bush Sr's Commentary last night? How could anyone watch that man speak and not come away feeling that The United States of America is doing the right thing by insisting on the disarmament and/or removal of Saddam Hussein today? He speaks with genuine honesty and integrity.

Catmando....That qoute is great...and scary....

If he only knew

I used to listen to Rush all the time back before he was famous. Back then he was funny, irreverent, fresh, novel, entertaining, and a great change from the liberal media of the day. Unfortunately as he became famous he started to change. His show went to two hours and he spent the first 45 minutes talking about how important he was. I got bored with him and have never really liked him like I used to.

I listened to NPR for a few hours every day back then and they were definately the liberal press back then. (If you think NPR is liberal now they have come so far to the right since then I almost consider them conservative anymore.) It was great to listen to Paul Harvey, Rush, and even the Christian radio just to get a balanced view of everything.

Now it seems like the only one I like from the right is O'Reilly. Hannity spends way too much time attacking Hillory when there are much better things to be talking about. Reminds me of Rush talking about himself for 45 minutes every show. O'Reilly does a good job of pretending to be fair and balanced and is respectful of others. He also bothers to stay with current topics and always has a well thought out agenda for the show.

There really is nobody for the left anymore, so it seems the only sources are left leaning foreign papers. I try to regularly at least skim the websites of papers from all over the world and try to keep informed about opinions outside the US press, which seems more and more to be all pushing the same agenda, with the same few owners controlling it all. I do find articles referenced at http://www.smirkingchimp.com to be at least well presented and well thought out (at least some of them) and a nice comparison and reality check. As I have been advocating all along, it is very important to question all sources and make sure you hear all sides before coming to your own conclusion about things.

The only way you can get me to be a conservative is for the majority to start arguing the liberal side. I would argue the conservative side just as strongly then.;) ;)

Iran Contra Ok Let’s look back at the times!!

Maybe you choose not to remember but the Ayatollah's plane actually turned back to Paris one day while worlds most dangerous man the fool Pinko Leftie Carter coerced the Shah,(or whatever interim set-up with a guy named Baktiar who
Existed as the government), to let him land. Then a vicious attack on the army began. They were surrounded in their barracks and literally butchered.

Many TV pictures of the time of eviscerated corpses of Iranian Army officers, who could have defended themselves, except for the fact that Carter had decided to sacrifice our friends. Fitting it was then that Carter's ultimate political fate was determined largely by what he had brought on himself.

Or how about blowing the Ayatollah's plane out of the sky on its way from Paris, like the Iranian generals wanted to do in self-defense But Carter and Clinton have a penchant for these kinds of people!

Now most of our problems in the Middle-East have sprung forth since that day! And I hear Iran Contra from dirty mouths!
Jimmy Carter tried to ruin America and I hear Iran Contra from these Wackos??

Also and more on this piece of crap: July 2, 1980: "Carter campaign asks Federal Election Commission to deny federal funds to Ronald Reagan because private committees raising funds for him are allegedly not independent."

"In 1984, Carter visited the residence of Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin in Washington, D.C., to warn Soviet officials against Ronald Reagan's re-election” In 1984,
Recapping --------------------------------------------------------------------------------->.
Iran Contra
KGB documents prove how America's worst president betrayed his country by trying to get the Soviets to intervene in two U.S. elections to stop Ronald Reagan. But we have Iran Contra.

--Carter's role in starting the Islamic Jihad by allowing the Shah of Iran to fall -- and beginning more than two decades of international terrorism. But we have Iran Contra

--Carter's actions that led to the murders of dozens of top Iranian military officials. But we have Iran Conta

--Carter's long "blame America first" history, and his support for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and other radical, abusive regimes that hate the U.S. But we Have Iran Contra

--How Carter claims he is fighting for human rights, but completely ignores abuses in countries like China and North Korea while openly criticizing Israel. But we have Iran Contra

--How Carter cached in on Arab funding. But we have Iran Contra

--The role Jimmy played in Bill Clinton's fiasco in North Korea - one that has led the U.S. to the brink of a new war in Korea. But we have Iran Contra

--How his desperate quest for recognition has hindered, rather than promoted, peace. But we have Iran Contra

--How his disastrous betrayal of the Shah of Iran created a Middle East nightmare that plagues the U.S. to this day. But we have Iran Contra

--The real reason that anti-American Scandinavians handed him the Nobel Peace Prize, and how Carter actually secretly lobbied for the award But we have Iran Contra.

Iran Contra
 

Do you even know what the Iran Contra was all about?


What I'm saying is, when you watch Clinton you can see right through his dishonest eyes because he doesn't even believe the garbage that he spews from his own mouth. He's a little self centered snake and even he knows it.

When you watch George Bush (or his father), you can see that he really believes in his cause, and neither of them (Ronald Reagan falls into this category as well), is afraid to stand up for what they believe in. They don't do the politically correct thing all the time. Case in point, George Bush stood up to Affirmative Action because it is wrong. It is as wrong to admit someone based soley on skin color as it is not to. That may be against politcally correct opinion, but it is CORRECT. Racism goes both ways.

If and when this war is fought and if it is won swiftly, let's say hypothetically we find that Saddam was 3 months away from an atomic bomb. When the Iraqi's are cheering and waving American flags in the aftermath because they are free, then the Democrats committed political suicide today.

A reminder on Clinton Policy
 

Remeber when Clinton made the same argument in FAVOR of conflict? NO ONE said anything from the left then. Maybe they weren't paying attention because the President that they liked was in power.............

When Clinton was making the argument he said:

"The president said the Balkans are a crucial area and history justifies U.S. involvement.

"Remember that we fought two World Wars in Europe," Clinton said. "Remember that the prosperity and peace of the people in Europe is important to the future of the children in this room."


Here is the whole article:


http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/01/us.kosovo.05/

If you didn't see it on TV
 

I suggest you read it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

Tom - here is a good portion of your answer to the question, "where is the evidence" lets not forget, this is certainly not all of it. For Bush to turn everything over to the media would obviously compromise and endanger intelligence sources.

Colin Powell is scheduled to address the nation Wednesday February 5, 2003 to reveal more evidence that the liberals insist he does not have.

From O'Reilly tonight:
 

By the end of March Saddam Hussein will not be living in Bahgdad.

The upside to this besides removing Saddam and his weapons of Mass Destruction is:

After removing Saddam, the US will set up effective ground intelligence in the gulf region, making it much more difficult for Al Queda to operate there.

Also US will be poised on the border of Iran and Syria making it much more difficult for those countries to support terrorism.

With US forces on guard in Iraq, it will be much more difficult for Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their murderous rampages.

Saddam's regime is gone, and once things calm down in Israel, a truce with the Palestinians becomes more realistic.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Saddam Hussein does indeed have chemical and biological weapons somewhere in Iraq. (Leave off the nukes, as the IEIA has bluntly stated that no such program or weapon exists in Iraq) Hussein is and has always been a weapons junkie, and his jones was amply fed by science, training and materials given freely to him by the Reagan administration and a number of prominent American corporations.

One could argue that the best evidence Colin Powell could show the UN on Wednesday is a pile of shipping manifests from 1986, but that is not likely to happen. After all, the American names on those manifests would bear a striking resemblance to current door plaques along the halls of power in the White House and Defense Department. This could present an uncomfortable situation.



UNSCOM basically razed Hussein's weapons program to the ground from 1991 through 1998, taking care of pretty much everything the Gulf War bombs missed. The inspectors wrecked all the equipment and destroyed every missile, bomb and laboratory they could find. They were tantalizingly close to declaring Iraq fully disarmed when the wheels came off UNSCOM in 1998. In the intervening years, no evidence has been put forth demonstrating Iraq's procurement of new weapons development equipment and material, items that are watched very closely. Our satellite technology can read a watch ticking on an arm in downtown Baghdad, and is more than capable of noting whether or not Hussein's soldiers and scientists have been busy in the deserts outside Basra. No such documentation has ever been presented.

Forget all that. Accept the flawed but widely accepted premise that Saddam has these weapons practically falling out of his ears. Let's take a walk down a path to the future.

Powell gives his spiel to the UN, which is so dazzling that a resolution for war is immediately granted. The tanks roll and the jets fly. The 'Shock and Awe' plan developed by the Pentagon and reported on last week by CBS is put into effect - 800 cruise missiles are fired into downtown Baghdad, a city of five million people. Those cruise missiles are followed by a fusillade of 'smart bombs' which will be proven to be 100% accurate because all of them will hit Iraq.

Saddam doesn't quit. His army and security services don't turn on him. The people of Iraq do not rise up either, as they will be busy dying, hiding and mourning. Because we have absolutely no intelligence on the day to day location of Hussein, our rain of weaponry does not kill him. He hangs on, waving his middle finger into the cameras of the Al Jazeera network, which will film this alongside the shattered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The necessity of sending in ground troops to finish the job becomes manifest, at which point America will be forced to absorb casualty figures not seen since Vietnam. In the worst case scenario, those troops get bogged down in Baghdad, at which point the newly minted rules for the release of tactical nuclear weapons come vividly into play.

There are two diverging nightmares arising from this entirely possible scenario, both of which arrive at your doorstep. If the worst comes to pass, and our forces use a nuclear weapon to seal the deal and release our troops from the bloodbath of street-to-street combat, it is absolutely certain that Pakistan or Iran, or both, or someone else entirely, will deliver a nuclear weapon into the hands of al Qaeda. When the mushroom cloud goes up in Iraq, all bets are off.

Perhaps more disturbing is the scenario that comes if everything goes completely according to plan. Iraq is a nation that is 97% Muslim, and the civilian casualties that will come from a picture-perfect execution of the American war plan will motivate a shadow army of terrorists who would, under normal conditions, welcome the death of the secular heretic Saddam. This war has nothing to do with dealing with that threat, but it will unleash the fury of that army upon us immediately. They will see the corpses of innocent Muslims, and they will come for us. Here. The front lines of this war will move to your neighborhood and mine.

That is the best-case scenario, and that is the rub. Whether or not nuclear weapons come into play, our incredibly agile and effective terrorist foes will attack us on the home front, should we kill Iraqi civilians. The best laid plans involve this, whether we like it or not. Meanwhile, George W. Bush has done absolutely nothing to make sure we are safe here at home from the inevitable blowback.

The Homeland Security Department has been created, but is still tied in knots trying to streamline communication and interaction between dozens and dozens of intelligence agencies. The same CIA, FBI and NSA that allowed the September 11th attacks to bruise the skies above New York and Washington are still responsible for our safety, and there has been no interior reform whatsoever to solve the security holes that allowed the terrorists to attack us in the first place. The independent investigation meant to cure these ills has gone dark and silent. Our ports, borders and airports are still security sieves. Not one city or town is prepared to handle a biological or chemical attack. Hussein may not have those weapons, but it is entirely possible that al Qaeda does.

In essence, the King is calling for war while his own castle walls lay in ruin around him. The battlefield will not be in some faraway land, but right here, inside the moat.

This is not some mealy-mouthed appeaser argument. This is fundamental tactical analysis, and it says we are not ready for this war. During the entirety of the 20th century, we could feel relatively safe behind our oceans, because the wars always took place on someone else's ground. After September 11th, that changed, and we were not ready for it, and we are still not.

Bear this in mind when you realize that Saddam Hussein has been in office since 1979 and has never, not once, made an aggressive move against the United States. Bear this in mind when you understand that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, two very viable foes who have actually attacked us, want nothing to do with Hussein because he is a secular dictator who has been crushing Islamic fundamentalism for thirty years. If we attack, those forces will move against us in the name of Iraq. They are, in fact, just waiting for us to move.

Bear this in mind when you consider the inspectors, whose work will eventually uncover any weapons while simultaneously protecting us against terrorist blowback from a war. That's right: The United nations, so denigrated by the Bush administration, is currently working overtime to save your life.

What is this war worth to you? Are you willing to have it come to your city, to your family? It will. Bank on it. The U.S. military may be all set to fight. We as a nation are not at all prepared to defend ourselves against it here at home. Bank on that, as well.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.

Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

© : t r u t h o u t 2002

Reprinted from t r u t h o u t:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/020503A.htm

Liberal lies and the main-line press; the Terrorists best friend. :mad:

My answer
 

"For the sake of argument, let's say that Saddam Hussein does indeed have chemical and biological weapons somewhere in Iraq."

He does, it's a fact

Leave off the nukes, as the IEIA has bluntly stated that no such program or weapon exists in Iraq

maybe CNN told you that, but they haven't said "NO SUCH WEAPONS EXHIST IN IRAQ" How could they say that, how could they know that????? Iraq is a big place.

Tom did you even watch Mr. Powell's presentation? Even the liberals are backin down after hearing Mr. Powell. France is making a slow retreat as well.

Colin Powell reported that Saddam has (to our knowledge) two of the three elements needed to make a nuke and for all we know and in all likelyhood he has been working to obtain the nuclear fission material he needs. We intercepted crates of aluminum tubes from Africa that he purchased in order to centrifuge and or make the delivery devices.


given freely to him by the Reagan administration and a number of prominent American corporations

Reagan's Sec. of Defense was on last night in defense to this, during the Iran Iraq war, the Reagan administration according to him, "wished both countries could lose the war". The strategy was to make sure that there was a stalemate and that nobody conquered the other in that war, so yes we did provide some weaponry to Iraq. We helped the Soviet Union also in WW II but that does not mean we agreed with everything they did. It's a matter of lesser of two evils.

They were tantalizingly close to declaring Iraq fully disarmed when the wheels came off UNSCOM in 1998

and why did the wheels come off? Answer: because they were too close. Too close to what? Answer: too close to disarming Saddaam. So what did he do? He threw them out and bought himself 5 years to continue what they were too close to.

no evidence has been put forth demonstrating Iraq's procurement of new weapons

What, are you kidding me? NO EVIDENCE??????:crazy:

is more than capable of noting whether or not Hussein's soldiers and scientists have been busy in the deserts outside Basra. No such documentation has ever been presented.


where did you get your information from? I'll ask you again did you not see the sanitized factories in the Satellite photos, and the diagrams of the mobile labs on truck and railcar beds as desribed by Iraqi defectors?? I suppose you believe the Iraqi representatives whos argument is, "dee Amedicans are lying, lies I tell you, dees are cartoons"

Powell gives his spiel to the UN, which is so dazzling that a resolution for war is immediately granted

It doesn't have to be granted, the President is authorized, and 17 useless UN resolutions have been blatently violated

The tanks roll and the jets fly. The 'Shock and Awe' plan developed by the Pentagon and reported on last week by CBS is put into effect - 800 cruise missiles are fired into downtown Baghdad, a city of five million people. Those cruise missiles are followed by a fusillade of 'smart bombs' which will be proven to be 100% accurate because all of them will hit Iraq.


are you privy to Gen. Frank's strategy??? Thanks for letting us know what is going to happen, I thought that was classified information

Saddam doesn't quit. His army and security services don't turn on him

but history says, they will

The people of Iraq do not rise up either, as they will be busy dying, hiding and mourning

but the death of Iraqi people didn't bother you when Saddam was exterminating them himself. Yes some innocent people will die a casualty that unfortunately might have to occur for the betterment of the world, and for the best interest of the United States, it is better them than us.

The necessity of sending in ground troops to finish the job becomes manifest, at which point America will be forced to absorb casualty figures not seen since Vietnam

and where are all those who suggested prior to going into Afganistan that it would be a bloodbath of our American soldiers? Where are they today?

Iraq is a nation that is 97% Muslim
secular heretic Saddam

97% where did you get that statistic? I don't know if I would call Saddam secular, he speaks of god pretty often.

and effective terrorist foes will attack us on the home front, should we kill Iraqi civilians

they don't have any intention of attacking us anyway? If we leave Saddam in place, there is a much higher likelyhood that an organized well funded mass casualty attack takes place in the near future

George W. Bush has done absolutely nothing to make sure we are safe here at home from the inevitable blowback.

NOTHING? NOT A THING? and you support that with what facts? What did Clinton do?

Not one city or town is prepared to handle a biological or chemical attack

that I agree with

Saddam Hussein has been in office since 1979 and has never, not once, made an aggressive move against the United States

he tried to assasinate George Bush 41

Bear this in mind when you understand that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, two very viable foes who have actually attacked us, want nothing to do with Hussein because he is a secular dictator who has been crushing Islamic fundamentalism for thirty years

but they have a common hatred - USA


the UN is going to protect us? The UN is going to find the weapons? WHEN? When have they ever found anything significant? They gave N. Korea a clean bill of health didn't they? How can you expect them to find anything, that's a tall task when you're up against the resources of the wealthy nation of Iraq whose mission statement is DECEPTION?

The United nations, so denigrated by the Bush administration, is currently working overtime to save your life.

the UN is in danger of losing it's own life and becoming a null organization. You can only say "stop or else" so many times. 17 is too many. Saddam is saying "or else what"?

What is this war worth to you? Are you willing to have it come to your city, to your family?

absolutely not. But it came way too close for comfort in Sept. 2001. I wish people like Saddam Hussein didn't exhist on this planet


It will. Bank on it. The U.S. military may be all set to fight. We as a nation are not at all prepared to defend ourselves against it here at home. Bank on that, as well

Protecting this entire nation from terrorist attack is about as tall a task asking the UN to find all of Saddam's weapons in the great deserts of Iraq. There is no simple solution, and I don't hear any answers coming from the left. All they seem to do is refute the Bush administration. How about this, why don't democrats stop playing politics and crying because they are not in POWER for a little while and help to figure out what is best for our future before there is no USA for democrats to ever be in POWER of again. If you are so opposed to the plan, come up with an answer. The fact is, most of the liberals have nothing to say, and alot of them are coming to see the unfortunate conclusion when they look at the overwhealming facts, that this war is inevitable. If it weren't for the liberal opposition, Saddam may have been remove years ago. That couldn't happen pre Sept. 11, why couldn't it happen? Well look how hard it is to make the democrats understand the need to remove him today in the wake of Sept. 11.

Saddam and the terrorists that he is clearly in support of, are coming after us whether we go now or not. Like it or not, if we continue to allow Saddam to develop the weaponry that he needs to accomplish his goals, we may live in a country like Iraq one day.

For what it's worth, Catman......I am very impressed !
I know how hard it is for you to say that !! To bad more Americans
don't understand there comes a time to present a United front
to the world.

I can't help but think that if the rest of the world saw us as a
United front behind our Pres. They would not play these games
with us........

Re: My answer
 

Mike,
That was a great reply. I thought this thread was dead, but I guess until Saddam is the thread will go on.;)

As much as I wanted Powell's speach to work, it looks like it did not. My biggest fear in it all is that if we take this without the rest of the world on our side we will have a huge terrorist problem. For me it is not liberal vs conservative as regards terrorism, it is are we prepared at home and is containment going to be the better way for us to have time to prepare for what is coming. The Trade Center disaster might end up being only a small thing if we are not careful. I am far from an expert or even enough knowledgable to be dangerous about all this, but it seems we are preparing for the wrong war. Missile defense, etc. is not preparing for the war that is coming. They already used our own planes against us, what is next? I doubt it that it is going to be in the form of conventional warfare or missiles from over there.

The question I reallly want the answer to is:

Who would Jesus bomb?

Cat...is that you.....naw , can't be

Did you know that the US has performed over 1000 nuclear tests? I had no idea that there were that many.

They will use what they have whether we go after sudam or not. If we take out Sudam now instead of later than we may not end up with NUKES smugled into this country.
I say lets close the borders and ship out ALL illegal people no mater what. And the hell with not racial profiling. We are at WAR here people and if we don't do something soon They will run over us. LETS get togeather and stand behind OUR elected PRESIDENT and our people in the military. This country needs to stand togeather in the eyes of our enemies.

That's damn right.

And, good post @100+.

Remember Hitler. What threat did he pose to the USA??

Let's not forget how we came to this juncture.....8 years of bull****. So stop acting like a bunch of pansie liberals and pull up your boot straps. Sometimes you gotta act like a man, not a politician. Our country is @ war and is about to escalate that war and you freakin guys are still pissing and moaning about not enough evidence. You are embarrassing yourselves. If you are one of the 43 remaining Americans that still think there is not enough evidence, then I refuse to carry on with you, for you are either lieing or are completely braind dead. The UN has no balls and sometimes I wonder if almost 1/2 of our country does either......:( . I wnat my future children to live, grow and prosper in a free country. What ever means we have to go to to protect that, so be it. I hate it, but it's just the way it is. The world can be an aweful place, some of us still cannot see this.....

Cat, you are starting to sound like a guy who is basing SOME decisions on fact, reality and practicality....looks like us right wingers are rubbing off.....:D :D

I too wish GB 41 would have taken out Sudam. A few buddies ofmine were in D Storm, they said they knew his whereabouts and could have whacked him. Remember though, it was the UN that said no. He was trying to be as civil as possible......I think that was a mistake....see what following the rules does when it comes to war.....I.E. Sudam still in power rulling by violence and fear and then there was Vietnam....(I know you served, God Bless you for that)

GB 43 has not backed himself into any corner. Do you really think he thought that Sudam would just say "Okay...hell, you got me....I give"..???? They absolutely knew this would be the eventual outcome. They have taken a step by step cautious approach, playing this out week by week, right by the play book. This was about as predictable as it gets. This wack job has been in power for 24 years, he ain't going down without a fight.

God Bless our troops and leaders, this may get a little messy. Pray for our great nation..........A4.

A little from my liberal side
 

Politics aside, the fact is, it is not George Bush or Bill Clinton that got us into this situation, it is Saddam Hussein and the likes of him. No one american wanted this.

I admit, I am fearful of what potentially can happen abroad and here. All we can really do now is hope for the best, hope that good will prevail over evil, and support our great nation and our soldiers.

100 I agree but a casual glance at history will show it was the likes of Jimmy Carter who got us into this mess.

Steve
 

Yea Steve, you're right, Bill Clinton was pretty bad for this country too. I was trying to put politics aside.

My point was, Saddam and only Saddam could change whether or not we go to war in Iraq today. We can't change the past policies of leaders in this country either.

I am pretty nervous about the upcoming months as well, no doubt. Very uneasy feeling. As I said a few posts back, nobody likes this, nobody wants this.....it is a necessary evil. Thru history 100's of 1000's of men have died defending freedom, this is no different. Since mankind there has been good and evil and battles between them. Good has won the large majority.....I see this as no different. Hopefully this will be a VERY quick battle.....then the real work begins. You guys are correct about Sudamm as well. Forget it though, he ain't backing down now.

Cat, I decided a few months ago not to debate religion here on OSO. Just too personal. I will only respond by saying that we have made different decisions about God. I feel pity for you over your decision, you rag on me for mine. Seems odd, does it not? Or should I say....it seems fitting.

Oh, and sorry about the 'Nam mix up, thought you served. Later.

Allan
as for Religion in this Country majority rules or used too,
Look the couple Percent that are Pagans or Goat Worshipers if they do not like under God can ………
Simply go and Pound Sand up their Butts
:mad:

Okay, I'll break my rule one time.

Cat...."....for religion to succeed"....??!!??!!! That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard you say.........

Wow......I can't beleive you said that....

Steve1, right on.....pound hard.;)

The only thing I really worry about - based on past history- Is that SADAM will say to his men - They are my subjects if I can't rule them no one will and gas his entire country or worse NUKE them. I can just see him doing this just as it looks like he is going to lose. REMEMBER what he did in KUWAIT