100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: They Lied | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You know what madman, the simple fact of the matter is that you dont need proof to go to war. All you need is probable cause. Dont belive me. If you look at the actions and regulations of military and police operations you will find that they are surpisingly simalar. If the police think you have say explosives, then they will send someone to check you out and give you a chance to let them search willingly, unless they belive that there is an eminate threat. If you refuse they gett a warrent to search weather you like it or not. If you still refuse, and by this time it is only by violence you will be able to refuse, in a situation like this they will respond with violence, ie you shoot at them they shoot at you and the like. Of course there response is in proportion to yours. In the case of iraq they belived iraq had wmd. They gave many many opertunities for saddam to willingly alow the un to inspect. He did not comply. The UN then said we are sending inspectors weather you like it or not. He still refused and held the inspectors at bay some times with armed guards other times with delay tactics. Finaly we steped in, albeit for multiple reasons, and basicly said let us search or else and he chose the or else option there for forcing everyone, at least for a period of time, to assume that he has the wmd's. In a situation like this you can not take a chance, just like the police would not take the chance if they belived that you or anyone had explosives or other items of a distructive nature. Yes, but there was no way to hedge that bet. Those who are most upset now that we went in and found no weapons (otherwise known as the worst bluff in history) had there been weapons and they had been used on Americans. Then the cry would have been that President Bush did not protect the nation, that he should have "known" how bad a guy Saddam was and should have listened to those who begged him to do something about the threat he posed. I mean, it would have been the exact opposite of what we are now dealing with. Good point, Rayne. -Drew The problem with your analogy is, Saddam had resources and capability to do the 9/11 crime, he always had for all the time he was in power. People did not put into consideration, he did not do it all this time, what and how did 9/11 change that fact??? Bin Laden struck us on 9/11, bin laden is still free and Saddam paid for 9/11 with his life, where is the fair and just in that?? Oh I know already "Saddam did not lose his life for 9/11"  but what caused us to go there??? Dragoness, using your logic I take it you were massively opposed to Clinton removing Aidid, a man who could not have funded an attack on America if given another fifty years? Consider also how all Saddam had to do was cooperate with U.N. Inspectors and he'd still be in power today--tormenting, raping, and murdering "his" citizens. He didn't and so we went in. If we were wrong, how is the world not better off the day he was left swinging in the gallows? Iraq was the field. Syria, Iran, all of those nutty little nations sent their martyrs to try to score some KIAs. The issue is not my analogy, it is with the fact that you'd be playing the other side of this if we had been hit by Iraq at some point. Sometimes intelligence is going to be wrong--it happens. And sometimes (like when Chamberlain thought Hitler no threat at all) it is dead on right. I'm personally thankful that we did not take a chance. -Drew We were not going to be "hit" by Saddam, history showed it already and if a dictator tortures his own residents, is that really our concern? We allowed Castro, we allowed Saddam and others as long as it benefited us, so your point still rings false. No, Dragoness, it doesn't. While you have completely avoided even discussing the Clinton question (as it relates to Aidid) read the list above of the massive number of Democrats who thought Saddam a threat to the US. Note if you will the letter after their name. Now, whose point rings false? -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being wrong and having lied are two entirely different things. President Kennedy believed in the "Domino Theory" as it pertained to Vietnam which simply stated that if South Vietnam fell it would trigger communist aggression that would soon reach the cost of California. It didn't (though one could argue that UC Berkley tempts that argument) but that was because they were wrong, not necessarily because they lied. Oh, and enough of he "Bush and Company" were the only ones who believed that Saddam had WMDs. Examples: "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 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 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. "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 "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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 "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 "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 "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 These are all quotes checked at Snopes.com and easily found all over the Web. So yeah, as you can see from the quotes above it was ALL Bush and Company that believed this. No one else--lest of all, our good friends on the Democratic side of the row. -Drew *GASP* You mean... DEMOCRATS supported this as well? DEMOCRATS thought that Saddam was dangerous? DEMOCRATS voted for the Iraqi War as well? No!! Say it ain't so!!! Then how ever will Madison and Dragon blame all this stuff on Bush, when Democrats clearly supported him?!?!? <sarcasm mode off> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people who voted for it that are not warmongers were lead astry just as the American people were so that is irrelavant to the whole subject matter. There are people now who see what they were lead to believe was incorrect, more and more all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people who voted for it that are not warmongers were lead astry just as the American people were so that is irrelavant to the whole subject matter. There are people now who see what they were lead to believe was incorrect, more and more all the time. Dragoness, do you read what you've written before hitting "Post Topic?" Irrelevant to the whole subject? This IS the whole subject. "They Lied" was the title of this thread and the accusation was that it was GWB and company who led us all to war under false pretenses. So, I post quotes from Democrats who made statements BEFORE GWB was elected. And who led them astray? Many of the quotes came before GWB was even in office. Was GWB leading them astray from Texas when he was Governor? The whole you are digging will stop getting deeper when you put down the shovel. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being wrong and having lied are two entirely different things. President Kennedy believed in the "Domino Theory" as it pertained to Vietnam which simply stated that if South Vietnam fell it would trigger communist aggression that would soon reach the cost of California. It didn't (though one could argue that UC Berkley tempts that argument) but that was because they were wrong, not necessarily because they lied. Oh, and enough of he "Bush and Company" were the only ones who believed that Saddam had WMDs. Examples: "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 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 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. "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 "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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 "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 "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 "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 These are all quotes checked at Snopes.com and easily found all over the Web. So yeah, as you can see from the quotes above it was ALL Bush and Company that believed this. No one else--lest of all, our good friends on the Democratic side of the row. -Drew *GASP* You mean... DEMOCRATS supported this as well? DEMOCRATS thought that Saddam was dangerous? DEMOCRATS voted for the Iraqi War as well? No!! Say it ain't so!!! Then how ever will Madison and Dragon blame all this stuff on Bush, when Democrats clearly supported him?!?!? <sarcasm mode off> Don't forget, Hillary says Bush tricked her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Fri 04/11/08 01:19 PM
|
|
Being wrong and having lied are two entirely different things. President Kennedy believed in the "Domino Theory" as it pertained to Vietnam which simply stated that if South Vietnam fell it would trigger communist aggression that would soon reach the cost of California. It didn't (though one could argue that UC Berkley tempts that argument) but that was because they were wrong, not necessarily because they lied. Oh, and enough of he "Bush and Company" were the only ones who believed that Saddam had WMDs. Examples: "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 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 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. "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 "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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 "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 "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 "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 These are all quotes checked at Snopes.com and easily found all over the Web. So yeah, as you can see from the quotes above it was ALL Bush and Company that believed this. No one else--lest of all, our good friends on the Democratic side of the row. -Drew *GASP* You mean... DEMOCRATS supported this as well? DEMOCRATS thought that Saddam was dangerous? DEMOCRATS voted for the Iraqi War as well? No!! Say it ain't so!!! Then how ever will Madison and Dragon blame all this stuff on Bush, when Democrats clearly supported him?!?!? <sarcasm mode off> Don't forget, Hillary says Bush tricked her. OK, fair point but play that logic out based on the following Hillary type premise: 1. Hillary is highly intelligent 2. Bush is a moron 3. Bush fooled Hillary 4. Hillary thinks she should be President 5. What's the campaign slogan? "Easily fooled by morons, please vote for me." -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the conrpiracies for globalization are true...
Saddam turned away weapons inspectors which violated a treaty. When we accused him of having these weapons he still didn't let the inspectors in. This may mean something or it may not, but the U.N. wasn't about to do anything about this situation based on the news at the time. IF Saddam HAD these WMD he could very well have taken over Iran, and eventually the rest of the middle east, making him a super power. I'mnot sayin what we did was right or wrong. But how should the situation have been handled? Should we have begged and pleaded with Saddam? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, Bill Maher called her out on that one too. He flat asked her, If you let Bush trick you, why should I be confident to give you my vote, who else is going to trick you?
Funny stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Globalists are everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Globalists are everywhere. those dammed ninjas..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think they stole my kit-kat bar too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the conrpiracies for globalization are true... Saddam turned away weapons inspectors which violated a treaty. When we accused him of having these weapons he still didn't let the inspectors in. This may mean something or it may not, but the U.N. wasn't about to do anything about this situation based on the news at the time. IF Saddam HAD these WMD he could very well have taken over Iran, and eventually the rest of the middle east, making him a super power. I'mnot sayin what we did was right or wrong. But how should the situation have been handled? Should we have begged and pleaded with Saddam? Great questions. What is the worst case here? We got rid of a madman and his barbaric offspring and allowed an opportunity for people who have never known much past a 7th century quality of life to entertain something different. We've lost too many soldiers. We've lost as many as we have because of the type of war we've fought which has sought to limit civilian casualties. We could have turned the place in to a complete wasteland but we didn't and NO other military has had our level of power and shown as much restraint--not one in the history of the world. So your questions are good ones--what should we have done? Think about it--if Saddam had complied with inspectors (and why didn't he) he'd still be doing what he had been doing for decades but he'd also be funding those who like to destroy thousands of Americans on September mornings. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the conrpiracies for globalization are true... Saddam turned away weapons inspectors which violated a treaty. When we accused him of having these weapons he still didn't let the inspectors in. This may mean something or it may not, but the U.N. wasn't about to do anything about this situation based on the news at the time. IF Saddam HAD these WMD he could very well have taken over Iran, and eventually the rest of the middle east, making him a super power. I'mnot sayin what we did was right or wrong. But how should the situation have been handled? Should we have begged and pleaded with Saddam? Great questions. What is the worst case here? We got rid of a madman and his barbaric offspring and allowed an opportunity for people who have never known much past a 7th century quality of life to entertain something different. We've lost too many soldiers. We've lost as many as we have because of the type of war we've fought which has sought to limit civilian casualties. We could have turned the place in to a complete wasteland but we didn't and NO other military has had our level of power and shown as much restraint--not one in the history of the world. So your questions are good ones--what should we have done? Think about it--if Saddam had complied with inspectors (and why didn't he) he'd still be doing what he had been doing for decades but he'd also be funding those who like to destroy thousands of Americans on September mornings. -Drew A couple of thoughts. 1: Is there any concrete proof that Saddam was funding the 9/11 terrorists? 2: Once you get into a situation where you can't tell the difference between civilians and the enemy, you're in trouble. 3: When's the last time that the US had international weapons inspectors coming in to check on and catalogue what we are doing? Mind you we are doing some scary things, like focused energy weapons. 4:We've lost more men and women to Iraq than we have on 9/11. When will we bring our brave soldiers home? If we stopped playing Globocop and took care of our own yard, things would be better here, due to saving billions, plus you'd take away one of the big terrorist recruiting tools. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the conrpiracies for globalization are true... Saddam turned away weapons inspectors which violated a treaty. When we accused him of having these weapons he still didn't let the inspectors in. This may mean something or it may not, but the U.N. wasn't about to do anything about this situation based on the news at the time. IF Saddam HAD these WMD he could very well have taken over Iran, and eventually the rest of the middle east, making him a super power. I'mnot sayin what we did was right or wrong. But how should the situation have been handled? Should we have begged and pleaded with Saddam? Great questions. What is the worst case here? We got rid of a madman and his barbaric offspring and allowed an opportunity for people who have never known much past a 7th century quality of life to entertain something different. We've lost too many soldiers. We've lost as many as we have because of the type of war we've fought which has sought to limit civilian casualties. We could have turned the place in to a complete wasteland but we didn't and NO other military has had our level of power and shown as much restraint--not one in the history of the world. So your questions are good ones--what should we have done? Think about it--if Saddam had complied with inspectors (and why didn't he) he'd still be doing what he had been doing for decades but he'd also be funding those who like to destroy thousands of Americans on September mornings. -Drew A couple of thoughts. 1: Is there any concrete proof that Saddam was funding the 9/11 terrorists? 2: Once you get into a situation where you can't tell the difference between civilians and the enemy, you're in trouble. 3: When's the last time that the US had international weapons inspectors coming in to check on and catalogue what we are doing? Mind you we are doing some scary things, like focused energy weapons. 4:We've lost more men and women to Iraq than we have on 9/11. When will we bring our brave soldiers home? If we stopped playing Globocop and took care of our own yard, things would be better here, due to saving billions, plus you'd take away one of the big terrorist recruiting tools. About the proof, no, i really haven't seen an concrete proof pointing either view. It's hard to know what to believe nowadays. And you're right about the civilian and insurgent thing. It's a b!tch believe me. What sucks more is that they target their own civilians more often then they target U.S. soldiers becuase civilians are influencial and are softer targets. Anyway, it is still possilbe to win. We are and have been doing very well on that ground. Supposedly we are making much progress on getting Iraq's government on it's feet. Ok, the weapons inspector thing is something they had to sign to get us to leave them alone back in the first Desert Storm. Wouldn't have been wise to abolish it just becuase they deserve to be a superpower too. And yeah, needless to say my heart goes out to the fallen. I've lost friends over there. It sucks that they have to die for something that seems so distant and irrelelavent to us. The truth is they died to clean up a mess, and to help make sure that someone like Saddam doesn't wind up in charge. This person knowingly being tied to Alqaeda directly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Fri 04/11/08 02:08 PM
|
|
Unless the conrpiracies for globalization are true... Saddam turned away weapons inspectors which violated a treaty. When we accused him of having these weapons he still didn't let the inspectors in. This may mean something or it may not, but the U.N. wasn't about to do anything about this situation based on the news at the time. IF Saddam HAD these WMD he could very well have taken over Iran, and eventually the rest of the middle east, making him a super power. I'mnot sayin what we did was right or wrong. But how should the situation have been handled? Should we have begged and pleaded with Saddam? Great questions. What is the worst case here? We got rid of a madman and his barbaric offspring and allowed an opportunity for people who have never known much past a 7th century quality of life to entertain something different. We've lost too many soldiers. We've lost as many as we have because of the type of war we've fought which has sought to limit civilian casualties. We could have turned the place in to a complete wasteland but we didn't and NO other military has had our level of power and shown as much restraint--not one in the history of the world. So your questions are good ones--what should we have done? Think about it--if Saddam had complied with inspectors (and why didn't he) he'd still be doing what he had been doing for decades but he'd also be funding those who like to destroy thousands of Americans on September mornings. -Drew A couple of thoughts. 1: Is there any concrete proof that Saddam was funding the 9/11 terrorists? 2: Once you get into a situation where you can't tell the difference between civilians and the enemy, you're in trouble. 3: When's the last time that the US had international weapons inspectors coming in to check on and catalogue what we are doing? Mind you we are doing some scary things, like focused energy weapons. 4:We've lost more men and women to Iraq than we have on 9/11. When will we bring our brave soldiers home? If we stopped playing Globocop and took care of our own yard, things would be better here, due to saving billions, plus you'd take away one of the big terrorist recruiting tools. To be honest I don't know how much concrete evidence there is that Saddam was funding those who were responsible for 9-11. One thing that is beyond debate is that he financially supported those who committed acts of terrorism against Israel. On the other hand this is a man who raped, murdered and tortured people pretty much for the joy of it and allowed his sons to do the same thing. When you and I lose a sporting event we have a beer and hope to do better next time. If you were on the Iraqi National Soccer team and lost a match you were likely to have electrodes placed on your testicles as a sort of motivational measure. 2. I agree that once you lose sight of who are civilians and who are soldiers you are in trouble. But at least we attempt to make that distinction. Those who attacked on 9-11 WANTED the casualties to be civilian. That was the entire point. Soldiers faced the same issues in Vietnam as the Viet Cong often posed as South Vietnamese. 3. Our WMDs are an issue and we are the only nation that has dropped bombs of that variety (as a result, Japan has never again acted aggressively toward anyone) but I cannot dismiss your argument out of hand. I do know that we've had them for many years without using them and a lot of that had to do with the USSR and their own objectives. We cannot un-ring a bell. We've got them now and giving them up or destroying them now would be a special kind of stupid. 4. We have lost far too many brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could have significantly limited that number had we not been as concerned about differentiating between soldiers and civilians as your earlier point mentions. I do hope that we bring them home soon but not before it all winds up being for not. 5. The isolationist model was pretty much in full effect on the morning of 9-11. We were not in Afghanistan that day and while we have been in Saudi Arabia we were there via invitation. I'd only mention that I believe 9-11 would have happened regardless of where our military was at the time. It is Western society they hate--and that hate doesn't draw boundaries. Terrorism has hit under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Anyway, I doubt I've really answered any of your questions but I am glad that I live in a world and a place where ideas can be discussed without consequence. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lindyy
on
Fri 04/11/08 03:52 PM
|
|
Lindyy says:
Let me refresh your memory - President George W. Bush is NOT running for President again. Lindyy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry Lindy...he is already attacking McCain. As likely as anything else, McCain will win, and of course, will be the new source of all evils from day one, because he is just another 'warmonger' to those who live in Camelot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a reminder ladies and gentleman this thread isnt abou me, it is abou the lies that led to the Iraq war swindel lies like this..........The Most Heinous Crime of the New Millennium - "We have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." - Colin Powell on February 6, speaking to the UN Security Council, demanding their support for the invasion of Iraq
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote}
1: Is there any concrete proof that Saddam was funding the 9/11 terrorists? You realize they don't exactly post their ledgers in Wall Street, nor worry much about stockholder reports. You want 'concrete' proof Saddam (or any other person) was shuttling funds? Best luck there. But let me turn the question around a bit - Is there any concrete proof that Saddam had NO intentions of invading any other country or ever using some form of WMD (ie, chemical agents) ? 2: Once you get into a situation where you can't tell the difference between civilians and the enemy, you're in trouble. Same thing our folks learned in the Revolution - stand toe to toe with a better trained, better equipped Army - you get slaughtered. Learn to fight in a manner that gives you the advantage - your odds go up. As "unfair" and "reprehensible" as that is - welcome to battle. If you haven't the stomach, get off the battlefield. 3: When's the last time that the US had international weapons inspectors coming in to check on and catalogue what we are doing? Mind you we are doing some scary things, like focused energy weapons. Umm...let's see, today is Friday. So likely had a satellite pass over the U.S.at least *some* time this week. Sorry, since the "lookers" tend to keep those sorts of thing classified - hard to say. And at this point in time, Energy weapons are not under any sort of treaty bans by any country. Saddam could have gone that path quite openly, and been basically off the hook. 4:We've lost more men and women to Iraq than we have on 9/11. When will we bring our brave soldiers home? If we stopped playing Globocop and took care of our own yard, things would be better here, due to saving billions, plus you'd take away one of the big terrorist recruiting tools. Do you honestly believe the terrorist types such as bin Laden would leave us alone if we just declared one day "You know, you are right, we are pulling out. You are in charge now, and we promise to never interfere again." If you do, then about the best I can say, is you are *seriously* deluded. Look - they want power. You back off 50 yards, they want 75. You back off 75 more, they declare jihad and want 100 more. Why? Because you are willing to give them that power. You think that the Taliban would just leave the world alone? No - they want everyone under their rule. You think Saddam would have been satisfied with Kuwait, had we just stayed home and said "Not our problem, we are not doing anything"? Want to seriously reduce the 'terrorist recruiting' then you start taking out those who's lust for power gets out of hand, and demonstrate that if you attack, you get hammered back. Give other nations a reason to 'police' themselves. (Anyone heard anything out of Libya after Ronnie air mailed them some love letters? Oh..that is right...He was telling Saddam to back off, and currently trying to get in U.S. good graces with all sorts of pleasant talk) |
|
|
|
|
