BF2S Forums Iraq

Marconius wrote:

When the information was available, Horseman, the decision couldn't be made by Clinton, as he was stepping out of office.

Sorry Just not true. Beside he was quite active till the very last day selling pardons to convicted felons.
Perhaps he should have given some thought to his countries well being instead?

Marconius wrote:

Bush kept Richard Clark on his Counter-terrorism team, but chose to ignore him, as he probably felt the same way that you do about Clinton and his entire administration.

This makes no sense, if he didn't respect Clark why would he keep him on?

You must remember that right up until the 911 attacks, all the Liberal Democrats were telling us to
"dismantle the Navy Firing range in Viqeus, Porto Rico "  because   
" Why does the military need to practice? "
" Only stupid Bush and Republicans believe there could be need for a state of military preparedness? "
"  any right thinking Liberal democrat knows it is the nonsense of a by gone era ! "

of course I added dramatic effects for you entertainment but This was a pressing issue of the time. It is indicative of the Pre 911 Liberal mind set.  ( not mine)

Can you imagine what the Media would have done to Bush (Pre 911 ) if he Suggested that NYC needed some sort of Air Defense system. Don't make laugh.

Marconius wrote:

It was entirely in Bush's hands, another man not fit to lead even a small oil company in Texas.

Small does not mean ineffective. It seems to make his family money, lots of it. He has been dealt a tuff hand that other leaders would not pick up.
Don't take Michele moore at face value or factual. You do yourself a great disservice.

Marconius wrote:

Having no terrorists attack your nation, especially after a carefully well-planned and successful attack as 9/11, is not a sole signifier of a good leader.

I never said it was. Having no terrorists attack your Nation after averaging one attack per year previously is a Definatly a signifier of a better policy. I said that.

Marconius wrote:

That just means they are all back at the drawing board,

They had a Tried and true tactic, yet they haven't been able to use it again Why? Yes, they are "Back to the Drawing board, Bet on it. who put them there?
clue.. not clinton.

Marconius wrote:

happy in the fact that they have been successful in changing America for the worst,

Only your opinion here. They haven't changed our country in my opinion. Maybe they changed you. They didn't change me, at all.

Marconius wrote:

or are just lounging away with the money given to them by the various groups associated with the PNAC

Does not justify a Response.

Marconius wrote:

The WHOLE point of our initial military actions was to hunt down bin Laden,

Wrong and you know it. I have read your other posts. Why are you saying this?

Also, If they (The Bush administration) really executed the 911 attacks as you claim they did in your other posts. Why didn't they pick a Villain they all ready had in Custody and Say " they just caught him" Happy ending? You act as if we don't Read or remember your other posts. why?

Marconius wrote:

and that was just a well-designed catalyst to propel ourselves into Iraq unjustly.

Well, designed? I thought he was dumb, make up your mind? Again, Its only your opinion.

Only history will discredit him or exonerate him. You know this.

Marconius wrote:

Now we've sparked a Civil War,

If all of Iraq is against us (as you frequently say they are) What would be the down side?
The fact that most are fighting against members of the old regime puts this theory to bed.
Either way your argument is self defeating.

Marconius wrote:

the three major enclaves in Iraq are fighting since their 2000 year old traditions cannot just be rewritten and overtaken by a political ideology only 200 years in the making,

Do you really believe they are fighting because it is their tradition? I think you know better.
They all embraced the Vote they were given. They had a much better turn out than we did at our elections.
I think your argument is Totally invalid.

Marconius wrote:

and the Insurgents are doing everything they can muster to get the US occupational forces out of their country.

Yes why are they fighting so hard, When if they are in the Majority as you say they are in Iraq the Government would become theirs again as soon as we leave,
which they could easily facilitate by creating a Lull in the Fighting.

You side stepped this question before. Why?

The Answer is when they lose Iraq they will never get their hands on it again.
Smart people do not give up their freedoms lightly.
Their New goverment gives them the Right to be Armed. Their old Tyrant did not.

You get it.

The murky pond that terrorist need to hide in has become much shallower.
If they try and move fast we will see them.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-01 17:35:33)

Horseman, I only wish you could respond without so many holes in your logical process.  Only then would I actually spend some time to debate with you.  The fact is, you don't back yourself up and expect us to just go off and believe everything you say as ultimate fact when it is indeed still wild opinion, plus you have a superiority complex.  Come back when you can back yourself up and write some intelligent arguments.

Flecco wrote:

Nobody bothered reading the links about the attempted move to the Euro as a global commodities trading currency? You would think that American's would want to know more about exactly which WMD that Iran and Iraq have tried/wanted to use against the US of A. The Euro....

Yeah thats what Iran & Iraq have in comon, apart from hating eachother, they both made moves to trade oil in Euro not the Oil Dollar, which most of the oil in the world is bought and sold using.

Horseman 77 wrote:

...blah blah blah...

I haven't evaded at all, I'm merely calling attention to the fact that even though I trumped those EXACT arguments in past threads, you still choose to post them again and again.  Refusing to give up the last logical straws you have...

Still a " Poll " would be fun, Would it not? Think of the Drama !

lol

I am president saddam hussein, king of iraq and babylon, I am willing to negotiate...

Assuming we know how dangerous our enemies are, attacking preemptively when we “feel” that they are a threat. Following leaders to war mainly because of the “ideas” that motivate the war and a sense of righteousness that our way of life is superior.

These are the same reasons that Sunnis and Shiites, the Pakistanis and Indians, the Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, and the Israelis and the rest of the Middle East have been killing each other for years. We are treading in dangerous waters people.

Even though we have truly good ideals, ideals alone should never be the motivation for war, or why we follow a leader to war. We should enter war with the utmost reluctance and remorse. Especially as a super power, we unfortunately have the responsibility to wait until our enemies strike first.

Sanctions.

You have to remember in these countries the people cant vote, they cant even express their discontent for fear of death (except for Iraq now, Ty GWB, TB and Fighting men and women who stayed the course despite Democrats and liberals best attempts to foil them)

So their leaders tell them " America is bringing us Hardships! " Of course their leaders live in Fine Palaces and don't Feel the hardships themselves (except Saddam ) So sanctions don't work on Dictatorship Countries at all, ever

Cuba ?  Still going strong !

The point of sanctions in the case of Iran would not be to change the government or anything that radical.  Their intent would be to ensure that technology necessary to continue nuclear research would be difficult to obtain.  While sanctions on Iraq could not acheive regime change, it appears, in hindsight, that they were quite effective in denying them advanced military technology, or, in fact, even basic military technology necessary to maintain their existing force.

If most of the world went along with sanctions on Iran, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't be mostly effective.  With a wide consensus, it would even be possible to cut off their contact with rogue nuclear powers such as North Korea.  Military action will destroy consensus, and make conact with rogue powers more likely.  Given the early stage at which we have caught them, it makes sense to give sanctions a try.  We still have plenty of time to take other steps if they fail.

Dont call me racist but most of those diaper heads over there (over there) are nice people and like 15% are those moth3er fuckers that get fucking sand in there ass crack and want to blow shit up with no regard to who it is, wether its little ol bobby joe or somebig political name.  The news enflates for say what ever goes on say a car bomb goes of big deal it rly is but why in flate that more then it al ready is, why make the familys morn more then they already do.

another though,  some of the few percent of the soldiers dont want to be over there, those are the people who are kinda self centerd.  Then you look at the majority of them who want to be over there and want  to spread freedom, and then theres the person whos did rly want to be over there but fights for there country and what is right...
those are the three kind of people over there.

for the missle i cant say there was kant say there wernt, how do we know saddam had missle IDK our us intelgence agency said there were but when we went over there there wernt but we also gave them how many months do put em underground send it iran or other countrues or destroy them.  But yea i aint rl;y gonna change any of your minds but still i hope tthis clears things up!