right, because the GOP are the only people to create terrorists, not any Dem. I guess they materialized January 20, 2001? To all anti-Iraq/Bush/GOP/Conservatism -- what is your glorious plan to 'cure' this problem? Ive seen only ordinary Democrat answers --after all, Democrats are the first people to spot a problem, and the last to fix it.herrr_smity wrote:
its more fair to compare what the republicans have done to create terroristslowing wrote:
Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?Poseidon wrote:
oh yes, because republicans have made this country incredibly safe! thanks dubya!
Well I'm not going to be like everyone else and assume the president is the one watching the terrorists. That's what the intelligence agencies do. At least Bush made an effort in increasing the efficiency of our agencies.
Now you have the same people crying about their freedoms being taken away comlaining that Bush sucks at combatting terrorism because 9/11 happened. In other words, you want it to be harder for intelligence agencies to do their jobs, but also somehow make you safer at the same time? Seems like no matter what happens all you people are good at is bitching.
Now you have the same people crying about their freedoms being taken away comlaining that Bush sucks at combatting terrorism because 9/11 happened. In other words, you want it to be harder for intelligence agencies to do their jobs, but also somehow make you safer at the same time? Seems like no matter what happens all you people are good at is bitching.
Funny. all I can remember right now is the Clinton years of continual bitching by Republicans to the point of impeachment. When the list of impeachable offenses is getting bigger for ol GW. Yet no impeachment.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Well I'm not going to be like everyone else and assume the president is the one watching the terrorists. That's what the intelligence agencies do. At least Bush made an effort in increasing the efficiency of our agencies.
Now you have the same people crying about their freedoms being taken away comlaining that Bush sucks at combatting terrorism because 9/11 happened. In other words, you want it to be harder for intelligence agencies to do their jobs, but also somehow make you safer at the same time? Seems like no matter what happens all you people are good at is bitching.
Crazy. Carry on.
What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about intelligence. Can you state what exactly you are looking for with intelligence and safety or are you just content with complaining?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Funny. all I can remember right now is the Clinton years of continual bitching by Republicans to the point of impeachment. When the list of impeachable offenses is getting bigger for ol GW. Yet no impeachment.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Well I'm not going to be like everyone else and assume the president is the one watching the terrorists. That's what the intelligence agencies do. At least Bush made an effort in increasing the efficiency of our agencies.
Now you have the same people crying about their freedoms being taken away comlaining that Bush sucks at combatting terrorism because 9/11 happened. In other words, you want it to be harder for intelligence agencies to do their jobs, but also somehow make you safer at the same time? Seems like no matter what happens all you people are good at is bitching.
Crazy. Carry on.
On a side note - do you seriously believe the democrats wouldn't want Bush impeached if given the chance?
Don't blame me... Bush was the originator of an attempt to connect 9/11 with Iraq. One of the first rationales used by the White House for attacking Iraq in the buildup to 2003's battle was Saddam's connection to terror, which as you implied, didn't really exist.lowing wrote:
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, it was to oust Saddam. It only became an issue after the terrorists moved in once Saddam was removed. It was not anticipated, but still needs to be dealt with. Please stop trying to say Afghanistan and Iraq were the same fight when we went to Iraq. It is the only argument anti-Bush people have in this effort, and it is not even true.
I love it, being called a war monger from someone who is from the most appeasing, nazi colaborating, ride the coat tails of all who fight for peace, country on the planet. You go girl!![F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:
USA need to get their shit together....Iraq had nothing to doo with WTC....and the reason you have the most enemies and terrorists is because you produce them yourselves....always have....and always will....Bush made sure you will face even more terror in the future....Clinton had to deal with terror created from present politics...the next president will have to deal with the terror Bush has created...and soo on and soo on.....warmonging fools.
Excellent point. However, my reasoning was that if the dems do not continue the fight, and keep terror at bay on the home front, we will be attacked.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Now we're talking so, by YOUR logic, 9-11 happened a year into Bush's term, so its clintons fault. So lets say your prediction is right and 1.5 years after a dem is president, a terrorist attack happens. That will be the Dem's fault right? Even though its about the same amount of time Bush was in office when 9-11 happened. Point being, no matter what happens, when it happens, its the liberals and democrats fault. The whole "debate" is moot. Dem's lose as always.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmm, 911 in planned all during Clinton Administration, carried out within the first year of the Bush administration, I dunno, whatcha think?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I willnot answer the OP. I will not step in to this circle again. I want to know this. How did super President Bush allow 9-11 to happen on his watch? Oh nevermind. I guess Clinton and the liberals are responsible for that too. Carry on.
Maybe while terrorist attacks were being carried out in the 90's it might have been a better idea to increase funding to national security agencies instead of cutting it. But yer right I am sure Clinton's actions had nothing to do with it.
We'll risk being attacked either way. Fighting in Iraq doesn't make us any safer. Improving domestic security will.lowing wrote:
Excellent point. However, my reasoning was that if the dems do not continue the fight, and keep terror at bay on the home front, we will be attacked.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Now we're talking so, by YOUR logic, 9-11 happened a year into Bush's term, so its clintons fault. So lets say your prediction is right and 1.5 years after a dem is president, a terrorist attack happens. That will be the Dem's fault right? Even though its about the same amount of time Bush was in office when 9-11 happened. Point being, no matter what happens, when it happens, its the liberals and democrats fault. The whole "debate" is moot. Dem's lose as always.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmm, 911 in planned all during Clinton Administration, carried out within the first year of the Bush administration, I dunno, whatcha think?
Maybe while terrorist attacks were being carried out in the 90's it might have been a better idea to increase funding to national security agencies instead of cutting it. But yer right I am sure Clinton's actions had nothing to do with it.
Yes I know, the democrat logic being, by taking a stand, and going after those that want to hurt you, and making it harder for the terrorist to get to you, all you have done is frustrate them more. Yer right, lets cover our eyes and ears and hope the boogy man doesn't see us from the closet.herrr_smity wrote:
its more fair to compare what the republicans have done to create terroristslowing wrote:
Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?Poseidon wrote:
oh yes, because republicans have made this country incredibly safe! thanks dubya!
No sir, they are far from it, I just put national security over every other issue on the agenda. Bush is fighting it, the dems do not want to. Nothing more nothing less.Spearhead wrote:
LOL. Yep. According to lowing anyway.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
So a terrorist attack with a Dem in power is his fault. A terrorist attack with a Repub in power is the Dem's before him fault.
Christ, The Republicans are perfect. They can do no wrong.
How exactly, is allowing terrorists a whole country in which to operate from going to improve national security??Turquoise wrote:
We'll risk being attacked either way. Fighting in Iraq doesn't make us any safer. Improving domestic security will.lowing wrote:
Excellent point. However, my reasoning was that if the dems do not continue the fight, and keep terror at bay on the home front, we will be attacked.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Now we're talking so, by YOUR logic, 9-11 happened a year into Bush's term, so its clintons fault. So lets say your prediction is right and 1.5 years after a dem is president, a terrorist attack happens. That will be the Dem's fault right? Even though its about the same amount of time Bush was in office when 9-11 happened. Point being, no matter what happens, when it happens, its the liberals and democrats fault. The whole "debate" is moot. Dem's lose as always.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … altop.htmlTurquoise wrote:
Don't blame me... Bush was the originator of an attempt to connect 9/11 with Iraq. One of the first rationales used by the White House for attacking Iraq in the buildup to 2003's battle was Saddam's connection to terror, which as you implied, didn't really exist.lowing wrote:
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, it was to oust Saddam. It only became an issue after the terrorists moved in once Saddam was removed. It was not anticipated, but still needs to be dealt with. Please stop trying to say Afghanistan and Iraq were the same fight when we went to Iraq. It is the only argument anti-Bush people have in this effort, and it is not even true.
and it ain't even from fox news.
You do realize that the Telegraph is basically the British equivalent of Fox News. It's quite conservative. That is an interesting article though....lowing wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … altop.htmlTurquoise wrote:
Don't blame me... Bush was the originator of an attempt to connect 9/11 with Iraq. One of the first rationales used by the White House for attacking Iraq in the buildup to 2003's battle was Saddam's connection to terror, which as you implied, didn't really exist.lowing wrote:
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, it was to oust Saddam. It only became an issue after the terrorists moved in once Saddam was removed. It was not anticipated, but still needs to be dealt with. Please stop trying to say Afghanistan and Iraq were the same fight when we went to Iraq. It is the only argument anti-Bush people have in this effort, and it is not even true.
and it ain't even from fox news.
You can look at it that way if you prefer, but I was looking at it more from the perspective of focusing on keeping them from even entering the country in the first place.lowing wrote:
How exactly, is allowing terrorists a whole country in which to operate from going to improve national security??Turquoise wrote:
We'll risk being attacked either way. Fighting in Iraq doesn't make us any safer. Improving domestic security will.lowing wrote:
Excellent point. However, my reasoning was that if the dems do not continue the fight, and keep terror at bay on the home front, we will be attacked.
I don't buy this "we have to fight them over there" argument, because when you realize just how many nations harbor terrorists, you can't consistently win this battle from the pre-emptive approach. We'd go bankrupt from overextending ourselves before defeating terror that way. Iraq has already cost us hundreds of billions in its own right.
Again, I'd prefer we focus on Afghanistan when it comes to overseas conflicts. We're making far more progress over there anyway. Iraq is a lost cause.
THis is why the battle lines need to be drawn. If you are harboring terrorists or their money you are the enemy. The free world should all be in this fight for the knock out punch. The expenses could and should be shared.Turquoise wrote:
You can look at it that way if you prefer, but I was looking at it more from the perspective of focusing on keeping them from even entering the country in the first place.lowing wrote:
How exactly, is allowing terrorists a whole country in which to operate from going to improve national security??Turquoise wrote:
We'll risk being attacked either way. Fighting in Iraq doesn't make us any safer. Improving domestic security will.
I don't buy this "we have to fight them over there" argument, because when you realize just how many nations harbor terrorists, you can't consistently win this battle from the pre-emptive approach. We'd go bankrupt from overextending ourselves before defeating terror that way. Iraq has already cost us hundreds of billions in its own right.
Again, I'd prefer we focus on Afghanistan when it comes to overseas conflicts. We're making far more progress over there anyway. Iraq is a lost cause.
Theoretically, this is true, but.... until that happens, it's rather foolish for us to jump into war without the appropriate financial allies by our side.lowing wrote:
THis is why the battle lines need to be drawn. If you are harboring terrorists or their money you are the enemy. The free world should all be in this fight for the knock out punch. The expenses could and should be shared.Turquoise wrote:
You can look at it that way if you prefer, but I was looking at it more from the perspective of focusing on keeping them from even entering the country in the first place.lowing wrote:
How exactly, is allowing terrorists a whole country in which to operate from going to improve national security??
I don't buy this "we have to fight them over there" argument, because when you realize just how many nations harbor terrorists, you can't consistently win this battle from the pre-emptive approach. We'd go bankrupt from overextending ourselves before defeating terror that way. Iraq has already cost us hundreds of billions in its own right.
Again, I'd prefer we focus on Afghanistan when it comes to overseas conflicts. We're making far more progress over there anyway. Iraq is a lost cause.
Remember how much smoother the first Iraq War went? We got most of our financial backing from Saudi Arabia that time around. If I'm not mistaken, they basically paid for it in full.
We obviously have the firepower necessary to win most conflicts, but we don't have the money for it in the long run, so we need countries like Saudi Arabia to bankroll our efforts. Europe also has plenty of money to go around. Until we can secure their backing, however, it's kind of dumb for us to just jump into the fray.
Once the conventional battle is over though, we face other issues that we lack the resources for. We need the help of Islamic nations in things like occupations of Middle Eastern nations. If we had waited long enough to get the aid of various Islamic nations for things like interpreters and cultural advisors, then we'd probably be faring better in Iraq right about now.
The only difference between the start of the gulf war in '91 and the continuation of it in '03 is, in '91, Iraq was a direct threat to Kuwait and the nieghboring countries so they all bent over backwards for our assistence in securing their borders for them. Now, since the flames of terrorism is turned toward someone other than them, they could care less. Kinda sorta like France's behavior.Turquoise wrote:
Theoretically, this is true, but.... until that happens, it's rather foolish for us to jump into war without the appropriate financial allies by our side.lowing wrote:
THis is why the battle lines need to be drawn. If you are harboring terrorists or their money you are the enemy. The free world should all be in this fight for the knock out punch. The expenses could and should be shared.Turquoise wrote:
You can look at it that way if you prefer, but I was looking at it more from the perspective of focusing on keeping them from even entering the country in the first place.
I don't buy this "we have to fight them over there" argument, because when you realize just how many nations harbor terrorists, you can't consistently win this battle from the pre-emptive approach. We'd go bankrupt from overextending ourselves before defeating terror that way. Iraq has already cost us hundreds of billions in its own right.
Again, I'd prefer we focus on Afghanistan when it comes to overseas conflicts. We're making far more progress over there anyway. Iraq is a lost cause.
Remember how much smoother the first Iraq War went? We got most of our financial backing from Saudi Arabia that time around. If I'm not mistaken, they basically paid for it in full.
We obviously have the firepower necessary to win most conflicts, but we don't have the money for it in the long run, so we need countries like Saudi Arabia to bankroll our efforts. Europe also has plenty of money to go around. Until we can secure their backing, however, it's kind of dumb for us to just jump into the fray.
Once the conventional battle is over though, we face other issues that we lack the resources for. We need the help of Islamic nations in things like occupations of Middle Eastern nations. If we had waited long enough to get the aid of various Islamic nations for things like interpreters and cultural advisors, then we'd probably be faring better in Iraq right about now.
Well, I agree with you on that, but I think Europe (in general) is more receptive to conflicts that involve stopping one country from invading another rather than aiding in an invasion. By 2003, Saddam was a threat to his own people for sure, but he wasn't really a threat to any other country. He wasn't stupid enough to try invading Kuwait again, and no other neighboring country would be possible for him to invade without either engaging a comparable force (like Iran) or another ally of the U.S. (like Jordan). And, of course, Saddam invading Syria would have made Iran spring to its defense.lowing wrote:
The only difference between the start of the gulf war in '91 and the continuation of it in '03 is, in '91, Iraq was a direct threat to Kuwait and the nieghboring countries so they all bent over backwards for our assistence in securing their borders for them. Now, since the flames of terrorism is turned toward someone other than them, they could care less. Kinda sorta like France's behavior.Turquoise wrote:
Theoretically, this is true, but.... until that happens, it's rather foolish for us to jump into war without the appropriate financial allies by our side.lowing wrote:
THis is why the battle lines need to be drawn. If you are harboring terrorists or their money you are the enemy. The free world should all be in this fight for the knock out punch. The expenses could and should be shared.
Remember how much smoother the first Iraq War went? We got most of our financial backing from Saudi Arabia that time around. If I'm not mistaken, they basically paid for it in full.
We obviously have the firepower necessary to win most conflicts, but we don't have the money for it in the long run, so we need countries like Saudi Arabia to bankroll our efforts. Europe also has plenty of money to go around. Until we can secure their backing, however, it's kind of dumb for us to just jump into the fray.
Once the conventional battle is over though, we face other issues that we lack the resources for. We need the help of Islamic nations in things like occupations of Middle Eastern nations. If we had waited long enough to get the aid of various Islamic nations for things like interpreters and cultural advisors, then we'd probably be faring better in Iraq right about now.
So, Europe logically had no reason to help us in removing Saddam, and the involvement of many of these nations in the oil-for-food program certainly didn't motivate them either. Of course, there were plenty of American corporations involved in that scandal as well....
Still, if we had been more diplomatic in our approach toward gathering allies, we would have likely either disarmed Saddam successfully, or we would have entered war with Iraq with far more financial and cultural resources. We just would have entered war a few years later.
It still makes little sense to me why Bush wanted to invade so soon. Jumping into war in 2003 was rather hasty, to say the least. We still had work to do in Afghanistan, so why add more to the military's burdens? We're definitely feeling the effects of overextension at the moment.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-03-15 13:22:05)
I think 10 years of diplomacy is plenty of time to figure out if Saddam was going to abide by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) or not. I also think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out who was going to say enough is enough in Europe.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I agree with you on that, but I think Europe (in general) is more receptive to conflicts that involve stopping one country from invading another rather than aiding in an invasion. By 2003, Saddam was a threat to his own people for sure, but he wasn't really a threat to any other country. He wasn't stupid enough to try invading Kuwait again, and no other neighboring country would be possible for him to invade without either engaging a comparable force (like Iran) or another ally of the U.S. (like Jordan). And, of course, Saddam invading Syria would have made Iran spring to its defense.lowing wrote:
The only difference between the start of the gulf war in '91 and the continuation of it in '03 is, in '91, Iraq was a direct threat to Kuwait and the nieghboring countries so they all bent over backwards for our assistence in securing their borders for them. Now, since the flames of terrorism is turned toward someone other than them, they could care less. Kinda sorta like France's behavior.Turquoise wrote:
Theoretically, this is true, but.... until that happens, it's rather foolish for us to jump into war without the appropriate financial allies by our side.
Remember how much smoother the first Iraq War went? We got most of our financial backing from Saudi Arabia that time around. If I'm not mistaken, they basically paid for it in full.
We obviously have the firepower necessary to win most conflicts, but we don't have the money for it in the long run, so we need countries like Saudi Arabia to bankroll our efforts. Europe also has plenty of money to go around. Until we can secure their backing, however, it's kind of dumb for us to just jump into the fray.
Once the conventional battle is over though, we face other issues that we lack the resources for. We need the help of Islamic nations in things like occupations of Middle Eastern nations. If we had waited long enough to get the aid of various Islamic nations for things like interpreters and cultural advisors, then we'd probably be faring better in Iraq right about now.
So, Europe logically had no reason to help us in removing Saddam, and the involvement of many of these nations in the oil-for-food program certainly didn't motivate them either. Of course, there were plenty of American corporations involved in that scandal as well....
Still, if we had been more diplomatic in our approach toward gathering allies, we would have likely either disarmed Saddam successfully, or we would have entered war with Iraq with far more financial and cultural resources. We just would have entered war a few years later.
It still makes little sense to me why Bush wanted to invade so soon. Jumping into war in 2003 was rather hasty, to say the least. We still had work to do in Afghanistan, so why add more to the military's burdens? We're definitely feeling the effects of overextension at the moment.
The continuation of the gulf war had nothing to do with invasions by Iraq, it had to do with forcing Saddam, after mulitple warning by the UN and the US, to abide by the peace treaty established after his previous invasion, or face "serious consequences".
Following that logic, why would he then expect most of Europe to aid him? The U.K. signed up along with a few others, but he couldn't have rationally expected France or Germany to join, because they were part of the oil-for-food program.lowing wrote:
I think 10 years of diplomacy is plenty of time to figure out if Saddam was going to abide by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) or not. I also think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out who was going to say enough is enough in Europe.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I agree with you on that, but I think Europe (in general) is more receptive to conflicts that involve stopping one country from invading another rather than aiding in an invasion. By 2003, Saddam was a threat to his own people for sure, but he wasn't really a threat to any other country. He wasn't stupid enough to try invading Kuwait again, and no other neighboring country would be possible for him to invade without either engaging a comparable force (like Iran) or another ally of the U.S. (like Jordan). And, of course, Saddam invading Syria would have made Iran spring to its defense.lowing wrote:
The only difference between the start of the gulf war in '91 and the continuation of it in '03 is, in '91, Iraq was a direct threat to Kuwait and the nieghboring countries so they all bent over backwards for our assistence in securing their borders for them. Now, since the flames of terrorism is turned toward someone other than them, they could care less. Kinda sorta like France's behavior.
So, Europe logically had no reason to help us in removing Saddam, and the involvement of many of these nations in the oil-for-food program certainly didn't motivate them either. Of course, there were plenty of American corporations involved in that scandal as well....
Still, if we had been more diplomatic in our approach toward gathering allies, we would have likely either disarmed Saddam successfully, or we would have entered war with Iraq with far more financial and cultural resources. We just would have entered war a few years later.
It still makes little sense to me why Bush wanted to invade so soon. Jumping into war in 2003 was rather hasty, to say the least. We still had work to do in Afghanistan, so why add more to the military's burdens? We're definitely feeling the effects of overextension at the moment.
Without the aid of countries like France and Germany, and after seeing Russia and China's reactions to this proposition, Bush should have known that we didn't have enough friends to stand by us for this to work. We also sorely lacked a significant Islamic contingent among our "coalition." Basically, everything said "NO" when you look at the limited aid available.
And after it became apparent that the U.N. was reluctant to enforce the treaty, shouldn't that have been the first sign that invasion was a bad idea? Surely there was a better reason to invade than to enforce a law that its own makers didn't have any desire to follow through with. If not, then this administration is truly and utterly idiotic.lowing wrote:
The continuation of the gulf war had nothing to do with invasions by Iraq, it had to do with forcing Saddam, after mulitple warning by the UN and the US, to abide by the peace treaty established after his previous invasion, or face "serious consequences".
We didn't need France or Germany to help enforce the UN resolutions and oust Saddam, they should, however, be supporting the fight against terrorism that has since taken a foot hold in that country. Admittedly, an issue that was unforseen by everyone before hand.Turquoise wrote:
Following that logic, why would he then expect most of Europe to aid him? The U.K. signed up along with a few others, but he couldn't have rationally expected France or Germany to join, because they were part of the oil-for-food program.lowing wrote:
I think 10 years of diplomacy is plenty of time to figure out if Saddam was going to abide by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) or not. I also think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out who was going to say enough is enough in Europe.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I agree with you on that, but I think Europe (in general) is more receptive to conflicts that involve stopping one country from invading another rather than aiding in an invasion. By 2003, Saddam was a threat to his own people for sure, but he wasn't really a threat to any other country. He wasn't stupid enough to try invading Kuwait again, and no other neighboring country would be possible for him to invade without either engaging a comparable force (like Iran) or another ally of the U.S. (like Jordan). And, of course, Saddam invading Syria would have made Iran spring to its defense.
So, Europe logically had no reason to help us in removing Saddam, and the involvement of many of these nations in the oil-for-food program certainly didn't motivate them either. Of course, there were plenty of American corporations involved in that scandal as well....
Still, if we had been more diplomatic in our approach toward gathering allies, we would have likely either disarmed Saddam successfully, or we would have entered war with Iraq with far more financial and cultural resources. We just would have entered war a few years later.
It still makes little sense to me why Bush wanted to invade so soon. Jumping into war in 2003 was rather hasty, to say the least. We still had work to do in Afghanistan, so why add more to the military's burdens? We're definitely feeling the effects of overextension at the moment.
Without the aid of countries like France and Germany, and after seeing Russia and China's reactions to this proposition, Bush should have known that we didn't have enough friends to stand by us for this to work. We also sorely lacked a significant Islamic contingent among our "coalition." Basically, everything said "NO" when you look at the limited aid available.And after it became apparent that the U.N. was reluctant to enforce the treaty, shouldn't that have been the first sign that invasion was a bad idea? Surely there was a better reason to invade than to enforce a law that its own makers didn't have any desire to follow through with. If not, then this administration is truly and utterly idiotic.lowing wrote:
The continuation of the gulf war had nothing to do with invasions by Iraq, it had to do with forcing Saddam, after mulitple warning by the UN and the US, to abide by the peace treaty established after his previous invasion, or face "serious consequences".
I do not feel the US needs to justify its, holding the UN to its word and its feet to the fire on this issue. Shame on the UN and all countries who sit on the sidelines waiting to reap the rewards of a defeated terrorist uprising.
France and Germany are actually quite wealthy. We may have a higher standard of living than either of them, but because they don't have such a huge military budget, they have more cash to throw around when it comes to funding operations like Iraq. I would argue that we did need them to help us on finances.lowing wrote:
We didn't need France or Germany to help enforce the UN resolutions and oust Saddam, they should, however, be supporting the fight against terrorism that has since taken a foot hold in that country. Admittedly, an issue that was unforseen by everyone before hand.Turquoise wrote:
Following that logic, why would he then expect most of Europe to aid him? The U.K. signed up along with a few others, but he couldn't have rationally expected France or Germany to join, because they were part of the oil-for-food program.lowing wrote:
I think 10 years of diplomacy is plenty of time to figure out if Saddam was going to abide by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) or not. I also think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out who was going to say enough is enough in Europe.
Without the aid of countries like France and Germany, and after seeing Russia and China's reactions to this proposition, Bush should have known that we didn't have enough friends to stand by us for this to work. We also sorely lacked a significant Islamic contingent among our "coalition." Basically, everything said "NO" when you look at the limited aid available.And after it became apparent that the U.N. was reluctant to enforce the treaty, shouldn't that have been the first sign that invasion was a bad idea? Surely there was a better reason to invade than to enforce a law that its own makers didn't have any desire to follow through with. If not, then this administration is truly and utterly idiotic.lowing wrote:
The continuation of the gulf war had nothing to do with invasions by Iraq, it had to do with forcing Saddam, after mulitple warning by the UN and the US, to abide by the peace treaty established after his previous invasion, or face "serious consequences".
I do not feel the US needs to justify its, holding the UN to its word and its feet to the fire on this issue. Shame on the UN and all countries who sit on the sidelines waiting to reap the rewards of a defeated terrorist uprising.
It would be nice if Germany and France did more to help us with Iraq, but I can't say that I blame them for holding out. We basically told them to go fuck themselves if they weren't going to help us with the invasion, and they're having the last laughs.
Fighting terror is something that benefits the Western World as a whole when it's done properly, but it seems like France and Germany are already dealing with internal cultural struggles with their Islamic immigrants. This is probably another factor as to why they seem disconnected from the Iraq situation at the moment. They're having to reconcile their immigration policy, and they both are coming to an important turning point in their own definition of identity.
I think the U.N. is rapidly becoming a useless institution, but I think its relative apathy toward Iraq has more to do with avoiding expenses than waiting for us to win. I think it's quite clear by now that we're not going to win in Iraq. We can still win in Afghanistan though.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-03-15 13:50:53)
Yes I know this Pierre but his statement was "since GWB entered the White House for all US agencies to know there was gonna be an attack". How does our intelligence failures and prevention get to the point in which we know there is going to be an attack. You stated this was the case when Bush entered the Whitehouse.Pierre wrote:
No. Intel changes all the time, becomes more accurate and detailed when verified.Kmarion wrote:
Would that be the same intel Clinton ignored for 8 years? Who let it get to the point where we knew "there was gonna be an attack," as soon as Bush entered office?Pierre wrote:
If I'm not mistaken there was enough intelligence since GWB entered the White House for all US agencies to know there was gonna be an attack, and they informed the administration. But all intel was neglected by the Bush administration. I'd look it up but I don't have the time right now.
I agree there must have been some planning years before 9/11 so technically one could say the Clinton administration had to look for it, but I presume the planning during Clinton's presidency happened outside the US, while the executing (taking flying lessons, etc) took place during Bush' term.
Hanjour (Pentagon Pilot) gained his license in 1999 and the rest were enrolled in January (The same month Bush was inaugurated). When you are talking about a few months prior to the attack I think the likeliness of it being prevented fall more directly on local law enforcement, such as reporting suspicious activity. All of the hijackers were in the country legally as well. I also think when it comes to picking up the big picture and putting together trends such as terrorist recruitment the burden fall more on the federal government and years of intelligence. We know there was a huge gap between the communication with all the different agencies when Bush entered office. It wasn't until the homeland security bill was passed under Bush that these gaps began to fill. The CIA was reduced by 20 percent in the 90's under Clinton. He moved to cut the CIA budget up to 25 percent by 1998.
CIA Director George Tenet-
In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration drastically cut back "Humint" – efforts by the CIA to recruit indigenous on-the-ground assets regardless of their backgrounds – after Democrats like then-Sen. Robert Torricelli complained that the agency was relying on too many people involved in criminal activity and human rights abuses.
Tenet said it would take "an additional five years of rebuilding our clandestine service" before the U.S. has the kind of on-the-ground human intelligence necessary to effectively fight the war on terrorism.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-15 14:04:55)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Oh noes....lowing played the WW2 card again.....is that all you got?
Talking about mistakes my nation did 50 years ago? I can admit Sweden has made many mistakes and probably will make more of them in the future...the thing is I don´t support them...and I can admit it they happen....unlike you my friend that actually support the mistakes beeing done by your nation now and can´t admit your earlier mistakes has lead to the current situation for your nation...unlike many other older nations USA fails too learn anything from their mistakes and are caught in a wheel of terror that will never stop. And don´t give me that shit about co-operating with fucked up leaders and nations...we all know USA is the master of that kind of politics.
Fact is...I know much much more about your nation and it´s doings then you ever have or ever will about mine and thats why we don´t discuss about Sweden here right? I hope that some day soon americans will wake up and see that they are heading towards a society not very unlike DDR....your freedom isn´t what I would call freedom....keep it too yourselves.
Talking about mistakes my nation did 50 years ago? I can admit Sweden has made many mistakes and probably will make more of them in the future...the thing is I don´t support them...and I can admit it they happen....unlike you my friend that actually support the mistakes beeing done by your nation now and can´t admit your earlier mistakes has lead to the current situation for your nation...unlike many other older nations USA fails too learn anything from their mistakes and are caught in a wheel of terror that will never stop. And don´t give me that shit about co-operating with fucked up leaders and nations...we all know USA is the master of that kind of politics.
Fact is...I know much much more about your nation and it´s doings then you ever have or ever will about mine and thats why we don´t discuss about Sweden here right? I hope that some day soon americans will wake up and see that they are heading towards a society not very unlike DDR....your freedom isn´t what I would call freedom....keep it too yourselves.
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi paints a grim picture of a nation that has enjoyed an upstart success like no other in history. You are content with your nation, many Americans are content with theirs. You talk as if you have some sort of moral superiority. I thought that was one of the attitudes the rest of the world had with Americans. Freedom has many definitions. America in it's short history has a record of resiliency. They can adjust and change course. You claim to know much about America, but if you noticed the last election replaced our congress. This congress now is taking steps to ensure a reasonable time line for a troop removable from Iraq. To me that is a characteristic of adaptability. I think you have paid too much attention to one side of an American mindset and ignored the rest. The United States is very diverse in opinion.
Xbone Stormsurgezz