What Does Bush Mean by "Victory in Iraq"?

tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
Sodhunter.

My comments are based off of frustration with the whole election process.
The whole political process.
I think there should be term limits. I'm tired of politicians like Ted "the swimmer."
He's a drunken pig. Why a state would continue to elect an individual like him puzzles me.

I think Obama's youth makes him attractive, but when Teddy indorsed him. I quit the idea of voting for him based on that.
Hillary is an on going arguement in this household. But my wife's vote is hers. And I'm surprised because she comes from a staunch republican family.

Will I vote? Yeah. I will.

I want to see as smooth a transition in our government as possible. Especially with War going on.
We do not need to get caught with our pants down here ever again.

With respect to Bin Laden. I kinda liken him to a squirrel that was at a rifle range when I was in small weapons training.
We were charging our rifle clips and we saw this squirrel jumping around on this log down range. We put down a line of fire that was amazing. I mean dust and dirt and rocks and wood chips were flying everywhere.
As we were chuckling and recharging our clips. This damn squirrel pops up again.

With respect to the war in Iraq. It probably needed to happen. I think it will send a message around the world that we are not to be taken lightly. Gaddafy Duck got the message.
But I do believe that Tenet, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush did not realize how big the turd was that they stepped on.
Powell probably knew.
And it's curious as to why so many high ranking officers retired.

So should I vote for McCain?

Probably.
 



tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
And Chuam. There's a video on the net of a guy wearing slacks and a Hawiian shirt getting ready to cook off an RPG at a group of US Soldiers. They cooked him. So much for being a civilian.
 

Sodhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
76
I hear ya T. If my wife was committed to voting for Hillary I would go fishing and take her with me! If votes are going to cancel out anyway save time and frustration and wet a line! Plus keepin' Momma happy IS more important than national security!



Chaum: It's too bad those terrorists hide behind women and children all the time. That's why we gotta waterboard them if necessary and squash 'em like the annoying cockroaches they are. The mental aspect of war breaks people down or gives them hope. They think we are weak cause of all you people whining that we are so mean and should pull out. They think their women (who they have zero respect for) are tougher than most Americans. Quit playing to the terrorists and realize they are evil and must be squashed. If we went and kicked more terrorist asses in Afgan you would still find something to condemn the administration and US about. Quit worrying about the poor terrorists and go buy yourself a new skirt or something.
 

tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
I think Chuam is actually RSS FEED.

Sod. The wife and I really don't banter much about politics.
She has her soap box and I usually do my thing out in the garage.
You know. Reloading ammo and reading hunting and fishing magazines.

I am concerned about National Security though.
And I would like to think that Bin Laden isn't that squirrel.
I'd like to think that his recent press is Bogus and that he got thoroughly smoked by all that ordnance.

Irregardless of how all this war stuff started. I'd like to see anyone who threatens or tries to do harm to the U.S.
end up a greasy spot on the side of a road.

(my wife has some old skirts by the way she would like to donate to some one)
 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuckslayer @ Apr 2 2008, 04:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Chuam;
You seem so stubborn after both our president, military leaders and the terrorists have proclaimed Iraq as the central front, you
claim some kind of exclusive G2..that intel agencies do not have !....LOL[/b]
There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went in. It would be hard for that to be the central front if there had never been the invasion in the first place. We could have attacked the people who ACTUALLY attacked us. We would not have created more terrorists by attacking a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. If I remember correctly the last NIE talked about the fact that the war in Iraq was actually creating more terrorists.

Please stop blindly listening to the propaganda. Nation building had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. What were our reasons? They have WMD's, nope. They are linked to Al Qaeda, nope. They are trying to get nukes, nope. etc, etc.

BTW, what happened to our push to get OBL?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site[/b]
Then all of a sudden he doesn't care?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)[/b]
I guess getting the person who commited 9/11 all of a sudden wasn't important anymore when you'r epushing for war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
 

tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
Chuam.

It was only a matter of time til Saddam got his weapons. And then threatened the entire region.
It would have been a while, but in the long run, he was set on getting them.
Do you remember the long guns he tried to develope and aim at Israel?
Saddam was a ruthless pig. A thug. He had to go.
Bin Laden is a coward. He needs to go. If he is not already gone.
Wars are not fair. And the reasons for which our politicians wage certain wars is beyond any of us.
I may not agree with their excuses.
But the fact of the matter is you are still free.
 

jmabbott888

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
0
Here's part of a speach from GW oct 7 2002

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Any of this true to what we found in Iraq? how about reasons for going in?
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jmabbott888 @ Apr 3 2008, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Here's part of a speach from GW oct 7 2002

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Any of this true to what we found in Iraq? how about reasons for going in?[/b]
When reading this, I have to take into consideration the source. The source of the above is the one who invaded Iraq. He's not capable of admitting that he made a mistake, and will say and do anything to try to salvage his Texas sized ego. His ego has done more harm to this country than anything else I can think of in the last 100 years. The only thing that I can think of that is/was more divisive than the Civil War is his ego. He will be out of office in a few months, thank God. I hope he drifts into oblivion like his Father. I can only hope that the young Americans growing up today will look at all the "lines drawn in the sand" in this country, and decide that they won't do more of the same.
 

Hartseeker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Why, oh why, did those evil lying Democrats lead us into an illegal war for oil!?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
 

Sodhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
76
Good stuff Hartseeker. Where is Chaum and 1spit. Oh I forgot, these are facts. They don't waste time with facts. If it's not on some liberal blog or airhead america it doesn't matter. They just do the drivebys. When it gets too factual they just post 100 lameass posts about nothing and respond to another 50 with lameass answers and leave facts they don't want to face to die. How about it, which of you guys has the stones to address all your lib heroes saying the same thing you hammer Bush for.
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hartseeker @ Apr 3 2008, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Why, oh why, did those evil lying Democrats lead us into an illegal war for oil!?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003[/b]
The comments above that are pre 9/11 are political statements designed to threaten and cajole Saddam to stay in place. That was necessary because Bush the Elder didn't finish what he started.
The comments above that are post 9/11 are political statements made while under the false assumption that Bush the Junior was telling the truth about what was going on in Iraq.

Ironic, that the sins of the Father were revisited by the son, but the son's ego is so big, he just had to outdo his Daddy, who he doesn't listen to, anyway. He just HAD to take the whole country, to show that we was more of a man than Pop. The Father should have listened to everyone else at the time and finished it the first time. If he had, then there would have been no 9/11, since all you conservatives seem to believe that Iraq was the root cause of the terrorist attacks. No one ever seems to connect the two dots of Father and failure and responsibility for 9/11.
 

Sodhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
76
Papa Bush should have finished it, Baby Bush shouldn't finish it, all the libs statemaents are Bush's fault, No terrorists in Iraq, if daddy would have finished Saddam off there would have been no 9/11, they were just bluffing so Saddam would behave. Do you even hear what you are saying? You have a Bush phobia. Remember, just saying or thinking something doesn't make it true. Your leaders have pulled the wool over your eyes. Your not wearing blinders, you are blind. The libs change their story to suit their situation. You gave two different opinions in one post. How does that song go? Should I stay or should I go now? It seems that you don't know now.

Whatever the libs do is right and the conservatives are wrong. That is your foreign policy.
 

jmabbott888

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
0
I seem to recall we wanted to push that sob right to Allah the first time but the Saudi's & others wouldn't let us stage in their country if we were going to push him back ALL THE WAY we had to stop at the border, granted we smoked alot of his troops on the road back with A-10's. I'll agree we should have done it but the pansy-asses here & abroad wouldn't go for it, kinda like in Nam bombing Hanoi, we couldn't do that till further in the war cause of the polititians.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
If we review by memory, the many things we have heard some folks say privately, publicly and in their postings, we find that they have
"painted themselves into a corner"..with no easy way to extricate themselves from their position(s).

See if this does not ring true;

A) If the USA has any misfortune, stock market down, troops killed in war, jobs being lost, a spike in crime, racial unrest, some
court ruling against our national heritage, hurricane Katrina, people complaining about domestic "hunger" (usually imagined),
an upsurge in perverse lifestyles, the return of tuberculosis, fuel shortages, etc, etc..
That's good news to them !

B) If things go well for the USA, stock market up, the surge is working, jobs opening up, criminals turning to Christ, racial harmony,
a court that preserves our heritage, disasters handled well, feeding hungry around the world, a warming of relations with France & other nations, a court affirming traditional & moral values, Christian evangelization and the conquering of diseases...
That's bad news to them !

Oh, and last but not least, ..the fuel shortages..very often, THEY HAVE CAUSED the fuel shortages, by..no drilling in the Artic or Gulf of Mexico, no offshore drilling (even though other countries are drilling offshore), no nuclear answer, no wind power (esp Cape Cod), no new refineries allowed, forcing "formula" fuels for certain areas etc, etc.
Still, their "gurus" fly in private jets, and ride in limos to and from their opulent mansions...



...It would seem a rather uncomfortable corner to be located in !
 

tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
Chuck.
If you ever saw the Arctic Wildlife Preserve. You wouldn't want it drilled for oil.
I've been there.
Humans need to not exploit and ruin certain places on this planet.
If the deciding factor was drilling there or me riding a bike around.
I'll take the bike.
 

Buck-eye

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
3,551
Reaction score
33
There was a president in between Sr and Jr that could have equally ended the Sadam confrontation. Instead, he lobbed a few missles, and protested Sadaam's actions in speech. That was the Clinton way. Maybe that is what our more Liberal members wanted Bush to do. I personally do not believe in letting someone continually run their mouth. If you must fight, hit first and hit hard.

I have a SEAL buddy who is the kind of SEAL that we only know about from movies. He is smokin bad guys on a regular basis.
For anyone to think that we are not actively pursuing bin Laden is border line insane. Of course we are looking for him. Unfortunately, there are areas of the world that will not allow us in to flush this guy out. He could be living in the middle of Islamabad, and we cannot do a thing. If you are wanted by the most powerful military force inthe world, I highly doubt that you are going to hide in an area where they are within legal rights to grab you.

And can we please get over the WMD thing? It is a tired response, and the worst lean post for leftist debators. We had the same intelligence that all the free world had, and it all came back with the same answer. Iraq had WMD's. Most likely, they were filtered in to Syria, but who knows for sure. So, are all the countries (even those that voted in the UN against the war) all a part of a WMD cover up in order to fabricate a war for Bush to appease his daddy? That is a viewpoint of the left that I have heard, and it is sad. If you hate the guy, just say so. Say you cannot stand him. Its cool and even cathartic. Be against the war. I support all our troops, and cannot believe that they do what they do in order for me to live the free life I do.

Let's get back on topic and cap it off, as the water runnning out at this point is reclaimed. The initial poke was "What does George Bush mean by Victory in Iraq". Go to the source, as only he knows. And I am fairly sure that he doesnt give two craps and one darn what any of our opinions are. He doesnt do his job for popularity. We can either believe or not believe that there is a group of people (Islamic Terrorists) who want the US destroyed and continue to probe our country in order to kill massive amounts of civilians. Whoever is for offing those people, I am supporting. Whether it is in Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Bali, Thailand, Disney World.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
timoniz;
I personally haven't seen ANWR, but a number of folks I know and trust have been there, folks who have spent a lifetime in trucking,
oil production and many phases of construction, My brother, 4 nephews and brother-in-law have spent years in the area and they see no problem with drilling ANWR, simply because the footprint is so small !
The pipeline has been a boon for wildlife in Alaska..caribou etc have millions of more acres to graze upon. You probably don't know it, but some oil is coming out of ANWR..the footprint is so small..most troublemakers can go up there and never see it !...LOL

You say you would rather ride a bike than drill in ANWR..drilling there was not the ONLY choice I mentioned..there are other choices..
Even if we forget ANWR..this same "hate America" gang still don't want wind power, nuclear energy, don't want any new refineries, insist on "formula fuels" that pollute more than the regular fuels,..and certainly no offshore drilling even though the Mexicans, Venezuleans, Chicoms and others are drilling in the same bodies of water.

Can anyone explain why (other than hatred for America)..these folks would want to limit our options on one hand ..then whine about "shortages" on the other ?
 


Top Bottom