Weapons of Mass Destruction...

[newgirl2708]

Naughty and Sterling...*and anyone interested* please go read what I just put on my journal post. I titled it Bill Clinton Iraq Airstrike...Anyhow, I tried to post it here on the forum but it was too long. I tried to cut and paste, nope, still too big. So, I had to put it in my journal. I really, really want you to read it. I really want you to understand why I get upset when people get mad at one and not the other. Where's my pills...?  It's a quick read, it only looks like a lot. It's Bill's Union address about why he ordered airstrikes against Iraq and Saddam. I also agree there was something going on with big daddy and Saddam. This is not something I wrote or modified. You can google it and research it yourself. He got the same information little George did. He did the same thing. Almost verbatim. I agree, we need to be done and everyone home, this is too much and too long..Wwwwaaaaaayyyyyyyy toooooo long. Clinton's was too short, Bush's too long... ;).....too hot, too cold and we will never find one that's just right.
Please, please, pretty please go read it. I'm on my co-dependant drug addicted knees, beggin' ya...and then, I will be done. I will dig a grave for this dead dried up nothing but fur left dead horse.
Let me know if you do,
Thanks,
NG

[Savas]

Well.. FEMA was great before Bush changed it. The Oklahoma bombing is an example of FEMA at its best. There's a few others I can't remember in the past decades where FEMA's actions  made you proud to be an American.

military, hmm? I'd have to think about that. That would either be incredible or a really bad idea, I can't decide which.

[paul300]

I think FEMA should be under the military command. Had they been in charge, that whole debacle would have never happened. They needed execution, instead Nagin was hiding in a hotel, Brown was a deer in the headlights, and the Governor clueless; all pointing fingers at each other while people were still on rooftops waiting for help?

[paul300]

Nagin got a bad rap? Please. Having a mayor step up and make things happen is true leadership. He is far from that. He had the power to make things happen, instead he hid in a hotel room whimpering. For god sake, how can you stick up for this loser!?! :-)

Unfortunately, if people don't listen to government warnings to evacuate, even refuse when people are present, willing and ready to move them away, there is the dilemma spending extra resources to get them out after the disaster. The feds goofed and they know it. But there is nothing anyone can do for ignorant (not knowing better) people not willing to accept help when danger is approaching.

[sterling_silver]

I live in South Florida, and have lived through many Hurricanes. To think the Mayor has anything to do with saving lives after a Hurricane is ridiculous. The Mayor can only ask nicely for you to evacuate. Those people had no means to evacuate. And even if they did, most people just don't. I never have. In 1992, after Hurricane Andrew (cat. 5 Hurricane), in Miami, all the mayor could do was ask for federal help. Local leaders can't do anything.Nothing happened here for two days, until the Military came in. Nagin got a bad rap, thats why they voted him back in. The feds blamed anyone they could. Nagin was blamed for not getting more people out before the storm. He can't force them to leave.
We have had 3 Hurricanes here in the last four years. You hardly hear from the Mayor. No one expects them to do anything.

[Savas]

It seemed as if no one had a clue what they were doing. in part it wasn't their fault. Did you know that there was tons of food, water, boats that wanted to head into New Orleans but they couldn't get permission to do so because of the confusion caused by the new "decentralized" FEMA? People were actually drowning and starving while eager Americans waited not far away, chafing to help. It was just...insane.

This is one of those roles where the office of president is perfectly suited to take charge and step in. As the highest authority, he's supposed to cut through the red tape and say "Darn it, just get it done!"

Still, you're right. Brown was a stupid appointment. The mayor...I don't know, was he really that incompetent? I don't remember much about him, just that he was at the center of a huge controversy with the Orleanians seeming to back him up.

[paul300]

Brain toot. Nagin really can't handle anything. I mistyped/thought. ;)

[paul300]

Failures at all levels. I totally agree the federal government should have done so much more post Katrina, but then they wasted $millions trying to make up for the cluster. Beyond embarassing, truly sad.

Who was that bozo crony Bush appointed, Brown? What an idiot! That guy was truly under-qualified. But what gets me most, is Mayor Nagin and his incompetent handling anything but Katrina. And what do the locals do? Reelect him. Unbelievable.
  

[Savas]

Well, I wasn't blaming Bush for the actual storm, I don't think his presidential power goes THAT far. :)

But the response afterwards was awful. We've sent more aid to third world countries than we did New Orleans. At the least, Katrina was a huge embarrassment for the administration.

Bush did decide to pull the federal government out of disaster relief and give more power to local/state government. He killed what was once a very useful organization.

It shows his level of obsession with homeland security that he distanced himself from something that should be in the hands of the federal government and directly under the president's control so that he could concentrate on terrorist security issues.

The thing that gets me is he took a successful organization and set up a new way of it's working that would distance himself (Bush) and the federal government from direct involvement.
Thus, when the newly formed FEMA flopped, he could claim it wasn't his fault and blame it on state controlled FEMA.

I don't get it. He SAW that FEMA would be a useless failure if he changed it's structure so went ahead and CHANGED IT so he could disavow responsibility for that failure?!?!?!

So he caused the deaths of thousands by natural disaster...to prevent the deaths of thousands by terrorism? umm...

[MsTickles]

I Couldn't help myself...

The whole Katrina thing bothers the F&%K out of me.

I live in California and I knew of the hurricane and I clearly remember hearing the warnings and orders to vacate New Orlenes a day and 1/2 before it was submerged. If I knew this, then the warnings were adequet. People just wanted someone to blame. Blame global warming and it's effect on weather if anything.

And my point was when mentioning 9-11, that no one brings up 9-11 ;) Get me?

[MsTickles]

There is not a sinlge once of me that wants to see innocent people get murdered. I don't want to hear another story of an American twenty-something man, (my generation) being blown to pieces.

But let's face it. We are only human. War is a part of man-kind. Everyone can keep rallying against it, but it's gonna happen. And sometimes, it has to.

We have had conflict with the middle east for like 30 years... What you think 9-11 was a random attack? The religious leaders that funded and organized 9-11, do the same for many of the people of Iraq. So yeah, 9-11 had everything to do with this war. Check it out people... How many assults on our nation can we take and just keep kissing their ***** to keep from the enevitable war to start. 9-11 have everything to do with this war, it was the straw on the camel's back. (No pun intended. LOL)

I'm not an expert but I get human nature. And I try to see it both ways, because an approach on this taking either radical side is, and will never be the right approach. To all you liberals and conservatives, pull the sticks out of your butts, have a cocktail and stop watching the damn news. Paul300, you're a smart man...

Rather, look in the history books and form your opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a dork. LOL. REMEMBER, AMERICA made him president for 8 years. And I'm proud that my President didn't run from our enemies with a brown nose and his tail between his legs like so many other I will not mention.

Thank you for the message Newgirl!

No disrespect to anyone. Just having a little fun ;)

[Savas]

Impeach? blech. We turned impeachment into an embarrassment when we impeached Clinton for diddling his secretary in the Oval Office. I suppose if I had to pick one thing to impeach Bush for, it's the passing of the patriot act. Might as well have used white out on the constitution.

Otherwise...as one who lives in NYC and was here on 9/11;

(Not at the trade centers. Only nearby, watching the whole thing. I spent the next three days trying to locate my wife who was in hospital (she passed through during that time on her way to work...ironically, she was in a Jersey hospital, for totally unrelated issues to 9/11, but that's another story).

All my views on this topic are influenced by NYC's "favorite" crater/construction site. i'll tell you too...most NY'rs are tired of people bringing up 9/11. We mostly seem to have an attitude of "it happened, move on".  

We didn't get the financial aid we needed at the time to recover from the crisis. Instead, due to our president's interest in pursuing an unnecessary war instead of aiding American Citizens, we have a mayor and governor who have had to use the law brutally to raise funds to in the form of  charges, fines, tickets...anything to pay the huge debt 9/11 has placed on this city.

(A famous story is at the height of the ticket crisis was a 7 months pregnant woman was ticketed and fined $150 dollars for sitting for a moment on the steps leading into the subway to catch her breath. Ticketed for loitering. This sort of thing was common).

So if Bush is so concerned with protecting and aiding Americans, he may want to start here at home, instead of haring off to create wars in other countries. I think the citizens of New Orleans and the victims of the hurricane/tornadoes in the South East would agree with me.

[Savas]

Ah, I was funnin' yah on the brainwashing. Although I often watch folks on opposing sides of a protest rally and wonder if there really is a difference. I remember the history they taught us in school...you know, that version where America can't do any wrong, has never lost as war, every president is a noble selfless leader? :)

I'm of the mind we should teach a more truthful version of history. Heck, I'd like to see a classes on political theory and understanding our government and economy started as early as 10...and continued on each year afterwards, through college. The lack of understanding the average American has of the way things works is just appalling. In truth (or as near as you can get) comes true understanding. Since you can't have the absolute truth, settle for teaching all sides of the equation.

As to gas prices...you're probably right. It may not have happened so quickly, but it was bound to happen eventually. I'm of the opinion the gradual destruction of our dependence on oil is a good thing. We need to develop new fuel sources and not just for the sake of the environment. As a culture, we're stagnating in this department. Then again, this is more the fault of large corporate interests than the war.

Our value system? *shudder* I don't have the strength at the moment. I haven't eaten dinner yet and my blood sugar is to low. The most I can say now is; "Those young whippersnappers... kids today!" (shaking fist)

[paul300]

A lot of democrats disliked Reagan while he was in office and now they're praising him during the primaries. Go figure.

Impeached? For what? Copy the items from the radical left site which have no facts to back up the claims. It's better to say you simply hate Bush.

>>> Aren't we basically doing the same thing as the terrorists, by going to other countries and killing their people because they don't beleive the same thing as us?
I think you're borderline saying we are the same as terrorists. I think that's completely irresponsible to make such a statement.

[paul300]

I'm not convinced gas prices would be less if we hadn't invaded in Iraq. China and India have dramatically increase consumption, we are not allowing for more refineries to be built in America. We simply consume too much for what we really need. I love our lifestyle, but I believe it will dramatically change during the next 10-20 years. Other countries subsidize pricing, besides, their consumption is a tiny fraction of the global consumption.

In regards to the preemptive invasion. When we invaded Iraq for WMD, who would have thought that Al Qaeda would meet our troops head on? Sure, they almost caused a civil war, but post-surge things are calming and many (maybe most) Iraqi citizens despise them for invading their country and killing many of their own people. So my point was (is) if they want to invade a country while we're on a mission, we can eradicate them elsewhere.

>>> All on a maybe. Maybe they'll send terrorists. Maybe they'll get past our tight security. *shrug*.  Our tight security????? Have you traveled recently? This worries me deeply. No shrug here.

I think you're mixing brainwashed with "mindset", culture and values. Brainwashing is placing something in the brain, not giving the individual the choice to objectively challenge the process. Telling a child that Jews are trash is brainwashing. Us watching NBC nightly news can be though of brainwashing... (just kidding.) but I do believe its biased.

We have our mindset, our upbringing, logic and all drawn from our surroundings, but we have a choice to choose what we believe is right and wrong based on our value system. But don't get me started on our value system! ;-) Its crumbling!

[allaboutmary]

Lets get one thing straight here.  Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. This is fact.  The terrorist's were trained in Afghanistan and most including Bin Ladin were from Saudi.
Also remember that this political debate, is in no way to disrespect our courageous soldiers.  My opinion....... I totally respect and support our soldiers, but do not support this presidency.

[MsTickles]

I live in CA and I sway more to the conservative side, which is like being a New Yorker in Zimbobway or whatever the hell it's called.

All I gotta say is this peeeeooopple. My brother served 2 tours in iraq. I'm greatful and so is he that Bush is our President. If we had Kerry running our country instead of Bush I think we would've seen a second WTC incident, am I wrong? Bush was our best option, I think he's done very very well at protecting us, I FEEL SAFE, and I know all of you do as well. There's a lot we don't know, and every single President of the United States has lied and they will continue to do so.

But I also agree that there is a point where we have to pull out of this. It's always been America's job to help other countries, but it's hard to complete the task when dealing with 3rd world countries where religion dictates, where children wear bombs, ETC.

People forget about 9-11. How often do you see the image of the planes crashing into the World Trade Centers? Where Bush went wrong was REALLY SIMPLE. Instead of telling America that were gonna go to Iraq and kick their ***** and teach em a lesson for f%$#!in' with us, he tried to please the BLUE PARTY and gain support from our compassionate nation by saying we were going over there for other reasons, like to "fix" their country. And I do believe they've go some pretty big weapons hiding somewhere, but we may never find them so that topic is SPENT.

My dad was in Vietnam. He's crazy from it too. And the one thing I understand now that I am older, is how important giving your soldiers and leaders support is. (Bad sentence but ya get it right?) When my dad went to war and came back, he was called a "child killer" and a "rappist" by the country. He told me all these stories of taking acid and living the hippie lifestyle, but when he came back is OWN had turned on him. Since then he's hated the radical left-wingers. And guess who was one of his fellow soldiers who aided into the mass histaria? KERRY. He actually LIED to the government about vietnam. He was a TRADER to his own.

So while some people go on a mad Bush-bashing rampage, re-consider our options at the time and be grateful for the President we do have.

I will never talk again about politics. Goodnite people!

[flmagi]

Right now a majority of people don't like Bush and feel he should be impeached. He has done nothing right and will go down in history as the worst president. So should another country invade America because we have been controled by an unfit president for 8 years?  What if this happened, wouldn't we all be up in arms against this invasion, even though we think our current president is bad?
Aren't we basically doing the same thing as the terrorists, by going to other countries and killing their people because they don't beleive the same thing as us?
I would love to see Bush impeached and charged with war crimes, but that is the American peoples job to do, not some other countrys.  But we did that to Iraq.

[Savas]

Heh heh...well, I'd hate to think what gas prices would be like if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Did you know a gallon of gas runs about 1-2 dollars in most non-western non-U.S. friendly countries? I believe it's at $1.90 in Cuba. (Venezuela doesn't count at about .30 cents a gallon, as they have they horribly socialist practice of doing government subsidy to cover the difference. Darned Communists!) :)


The fact that they have been repressed for years is exactly my point. You can't just storm in and say "congrat's. you're a democracy now. God Bless freedom!" By struggling and fighting for freedom, you learn it's worth. You learn to cherish it and respect it. These people aren't interested in democracy, they want running water and electricity, and three squares a day. It's when you're willing to forgo those comforts to gain democracy...THEN you are ready for it.

Lets face it, they don't know how to be a free democratic society. They don't really want it. What they want to do, is set up a theocracy and wipe out/kick out the non members of the leading religion.  

Ah well. i'm not trying to be harsh by using the word selfish, but "preemptive invasion" on the premise that the invaded country may send terrorists over to your country is a selfish act. We're basically saying that we are so determined to not be inconvenienced with possible  property damage and  the death of our citizens that we're willing to destabilize an entire region, cause countless deaths and property damage, and upset the global economy over it.

All on a maybe. Maybe they'll send terrorists. Maybe they'll get past our tight security. *shrug*. Lets face it, if some nut wants to set a bomb off, there's only so much you can do about it. Short of killing every Muslim out there on the chance they're a dissident...well, you see where it goes. Eventually, disaster strikes, people die...it's a sad part of life. A more mature America would accept that (but we're a young country. A political Teenager. And you know what Teenagers are like!!!)

As to brainwashed...(I sit back and give everyone a big smile!)

To some degree, everyone is "brainwashed". If there is some thought, fact, belief that you consider an "immutable, unarguable  truth"...that's a form of being brainwashed. But if we start arguing that, we'll be getting into sophism, theology...particle physics! (how does a cat walk through a locked door?!?!)  :)

[paul300]

In response to your first comment, yes I can put myself in their shoes, i.e., viewing someone else as invaders. I didn't say this is something we want to do... War sucks. However, they have be repressed for many years because of the dictators like Sadam who was waving an empty gun, and we goofed post war. So when we try and rebuild the infrastructure, gas, electric, water (something mainstream media ignores), the terrorists cleverly bomb a holy mosque and create an all out civil war. We under estimated this. A shake and bake democracy doesn't work over night.

Why fighting them over there is selfish? Don't understand. And we are brainwashed? Rubbish. Last time I checked, we're in a free democracy.

I agree with you on the policing on the world, however not many countries want to step up and assist during this ugly period. Again, we can pull back, that region will be overturned by radical  extremists, oil prices will go through the roof. If American's are willing to accept that path, so be it. Not me. Another gentlemen in here called it blood-oil, but is everyone willing to accept a major disruption in our economy? Unfortunately we are addicted to oil & energy and so is the rest of the world.

[122 Tactical Fighter Group]

As late as the end of WW1 Iraq was actually three distinct countries. The three were combined at the end of WW1 by the allies with Britain being the most active.

Saddam did use WMD's (different gasses) on his fellow countrymen.

The United States is again letting non military people call the shots in a very military situation.

The whole thing has sunken into a morass that no one currently has an answer for.

The MidEast has historically always been kind of in this state of affairs -

[Savas]

"Fight them in Iraq rather than here" is a fairly selfish attitude.

"We don't want OUR homes and economy destroyed because of a few bad apples over there, let's destroy do the destroying on thier turf!"
(Hey, normally I'd be right with you, if it would work. but i'm a selfish kinda guy. :)  However I'm also selfish for things like freedom and privacy.)

And yes, they are brainwashed (then again, so are we :) ).
Which is why there's no point in being there. Unless we want to wipe them off the face of the earth. What we're doing now is just helping them put the finishing touches on that brainwashing.

As far as pulling troops out. The second we pull troops out, be it now or in 60 years, that region will destabilize.
I've long been saying that Bush is making the smartest move he can make; keep the troops in on the assumption that a democratic nominee will be elected president. Then, when the democratic president pull the troops out, the region will destabilize and form a new anti-American regime (and they'll have to do it, republican or democrat. This war is too expensive and is accomplishing nothing in the long run to justify it).

This way, in the NEXT election, the republicans can point to the democrats and say they're responsible for the situation in Iraq and the middle east and hope for a republican win based on supposed democratic incompetence. (If I was in Bush's situation, it's EXACTLY what I'd do).

As to the rest of your question; we are NOT the police force of the world. No more or less than anyone else is. The region goes to heck in a hand basket; so what? how different is that situation from what's been going on in the last few centuries? Or before hand? It's a hostile region, prone to sectarian violence.

All the troops are doing is holding off the inevitable civil war. i've said it time and again; you can't force democracy on a people who aren't hungry for it. Democracy is something to be fought for, to die for.

It's meaningless and easily lost if someone else does the dying for you.

[Savas]

Well, look at it from this point of view;

You're just an everyday McDonald's worker...or taxi driver...or underpaid receptionist.

You've got personal views and opinions on politics, the world, religion...but over all, you do your job, go home to your family, and get together with the gang on weekends to hang out.

Suddenly an invading force comes into your country, one who' political and religious views you don't necessarily agree with. They overthrow the present regime (which you likely didn't care for, but hey, when do you ever like who's in power???) and start pouring in troops to "quell the populace"  so they can aid a minority group in setting up a power base.

In the process of this, your home is destroyed, members of your family killed, your job is gone (sudden economic upheaval, your office building was blown up in the last attack). When you'll next eat, where you'll sleep at night, has all of a sudden become a huge problem.

Perhaps things weren't great under the last regime...but ever since the invasion, things are TERRIBLE!!!  You're hungry, broke, and have nothing but time on your hands.

Sounds like the perfect recipe for making a terrorist/freedom fighter to me.

[newgirl2708]

HA!!! Thank you!! HA! I'm off my knees!!!!! All Done.....

[paul300]

Exactly, so why not fight them in Iraq? Better there, than here. Again, I'm not convinced we create more terrorists by the entry into Iraq. They were brainwashing them way before 9/11. There going to keep coming regardless of what we do.  They HATE western nations and we did nothing to create this mindset.

So should we leave Iraq? Just pull out? And if we do, what are the consequences? The terrorist will have a tremendous spiritual victory if we pull out after sacrificing so much. It will empower them if we leave before finishing the job. Unfortunately, the democracy plan is slow and tedious. A drain on everyone. I am totally frustrated about the post-war botch like everyone.

A question posed, if Obama gets his way. Gets elected, begins pulling the troops from the region. Then what? If war breaks out again, Obama says he'll have troops ready to move back in. Moving 50,000 or 100,000 troops back into the region is no walk in the park. So, lets start from scratch? Another 4,000+ solders die? Or don't go back at all and the region becomes so unstable that the oil supply clamps and our economy is disrupted. Gas is $15/gal. No easy solution. Talk is cheap during election time.

The surge is working, things are better, but unfortunately the press tends to avoid any positive news out of that region. I hope Obama decides to go soon. Upon his return, he will craft his response oh-so carefully.
;-)