I see the "teenage liberal" has gotten up from his nap and his mommy has let him use the computer again.
"With who? Who is our enemy? It sure isn't the Iraqis - they had no part to play in the 9/11 attacks. btw: has Congress offically declared war?"
Our enemy are Islamo-fascist terrorists who have stated their goal of converting, subjugating, or killing all infidels. First on their list are the Israelis and Americans. You are right that the majority of Iraqis are not our enemy. However, prior to the regime change in Iraq, Saddam's regime was a major supporter of terrorism. So he gets lumped together with al Qeada and other terrorist organization and with Iran and other state supporters of terrorism.
What Congress did in 1998 was enact the Iraq Liberation Act which made the official policy of the US Government to work towards regime change in Iraq. They also passed laws in 2001 and 2002 Authorizing the Use of the US Armed Forces against Global Terrorism and Iraq, respectively. This is tanamount to a declaration of war.
"Exactly, how do we plan on winning this war?"
By the use of economic, diplomatic, political, cultural, and military means to reduce global terrorism to the smallest level possible. By offering those who would turn to terrorism an alternative - freedom and democracy - we hope to make terrorism as a movement a thing of the past. We have no choice but to fight terrorism. While I do not believe that the US could ever be destroyed by Islamic-Fascists - we would nuke Mecca, Medina, and all other bastions of Islamic terrorism before we would be destroyed, I am not convinced that the terrorists could shape Europe and other additional parts of the world into Islamic-terrorist states. Thus, our leadership and actions to fight Islamic-Fascist Terrorism is done for the benefit of Western Civilization. IF Europe and other regions don't want to live under Sharia Law, they need to wake up and join the fight.
"Again, what is the plan to ensure our victory?"
Read The National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism and The National Security Strategy.
"What a load of crap. Do they have a mobilizing army we need to worry about?"
In a way they do. Tens of thousands of redical Islamic-Fascists who are willing to strap bombs on their backs and blow up innocents, who are willing to highjack airplanes and fly them in to occupied building with the intent of killing tens of thousands, who are willing to use biological or chemical weapons if given the chance.
What would you prefer: Living in a world where there are tens of thousands of terrorists bent on the destruction of the west, who could plant a bomb in the restaurant you are eating in tomorrow, or on the bus or plane you might ride in, or could poison the water you drink. There are people in London, and Tokyo, and Paris, and Tel Aviv, and Bali, and New York who live in this fear every day. Or a world where we don't have to worry about where the next terrorist attack will occur because we have killed or captured most of the existing terrorists, we have established democracy as an alternate to terrorism, and we have made being a terrorist to risky.
"What part did Iraq play on 9/11? None.
How many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis? None
Did the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda have a coonection? No, they hated Al-Qaeda as much as we do.
Even the Idiot-in-Cheif admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Quit trying to compare apples to oranges."
Your immature teenage brain just doesn't get it, does it? This is not just about al Qeada. It is not just about Iraq. It is about ending terrorism everywhere. It is about using a variety of means to stop countries from supporting terrorism, as Iraq was doing under Saddam.
Our efforts boil down to two primary objectives: (1) Disrupt, destroy, and disband terrorist organizations throughout the world. (2) Prevent countries from supporting terrorism. Without countries allowing financial support, allowing or providing training support, providing logistical support, or harboring terrorists, terrorism will quickly end. If the terrorists have no money, have no access to the tools of terrorism, have no capability to train terrorists, and have no place from which to base their operations, they cannot succeed.
Our plan to combat terrorism has been logical, methodical, and effective. We first targeted those who attacked us on 9/11 - al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan. The Taliban was helping to finance, train, and harbor these terrorists. They were given the ultimatum to turn over the terrorists to the US. They refused. They were quickly removed from power and replaced with a democratically elected government - the first democratically elected government Afghanistan has ever had. While 75% of al Qeada's leadership has been killed or captured and thousands of its terrorists killed or captured, there is still work to be done in Afghanistan bringing stability to the country.
We then turned our sights on state-supporters of terrorism. We had many choices: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and others. But only one had recently attacked two of its neighbors. Only one had developed and used WMD against its neighbors and its own people. Only one was in Material Breach of a UN Cease-fire and 17 UN Resolutions. Only one was committing acts of War by shooting at US Aircraft and has attempted to assassinate a former US President. Additionally, this country was financing terrorism ($25,000 payments to suicide-bomber families), was training terrorists, and was harboring terrorists. Saddam was given the opportunity to leave Iraq peacefully and allow the Iraqis to have free, democratic elections. He refused. So the US, acting with a coalition of over 25 partners, inforced the UN Resolutions Iraq was violating.
As a result of our actions in Iraq, other countries have come to their senses and renounced terrorism and have disbanded their WMD programs. No shots were fired. No missiles were launched. But Libya gave up its WMD Programs.
So you see, there is a tie between Iraq under Saddam and al Qaeda. They are both elements of terrorism. One formerly a state-supporter of terrorism. One a terrorist organization. They need not have scones and tea together to be allied in their war against civilization.
"byw: you should talk, sending our troops into unjust wars without a plan to win, or a plan for stabalizing the region. All you guys have offered is 'stay the course' - how's that been working out for us?"
The War in Iraq is unjust only in your immature teenage mind. What is unjust about stopping the develoment of WMD by a rogue nation? What is unjust about preventing a state-supporter of terrorism from providing WMD to terrorists? What is unjust about stopping a tyrant from murdering hundreds of thousands of his citizens?
We actually won the War in Iraq. That was accomplished in less than three weeks. Much faster, with less loss of live than any previous invasion of a country. That plan succeeded quit nicely. What we are doing now is preparing the Iraqis to provide for their own security in a democratic way. Not by terrorizing their own people, but by preventing those who would return Iraq to a police state from regaining power. Nearly 75% of Iraq is peaceful and under Iraqi control. Once the remaining 25% is turned over to the Iraqi Security Forces, there will be a marked reduction in US Armed Forces. So you see, there is a plan. There always was a plan. It was adjusted as conditions on the ground dictated.
"This coming from the party that toyed with our vulnability afer 9/11 to invade a country that has nothing to do with the WOT and piting Americans against Ameircans based on their position on the war and the opinion on how to wage it?"
See above. Iraq has everything to do with the GWOT. You just refuse to accept it.
As for an opinion on how to wage the GWOT, I am still waiting for a liberal/Democrat plan for fighting and winning the GWOT. All I see are losing suggestions as I outlined at 4:15 above.
"Here's my plan:
First, we extend the hand of friendship to our Allies we've alienated because of our President's arrogance to go to war without justification. We need the help of all nations to prevent the attack we experinced five years ago.
Second, we get our remaining troops out of Iraq and continue our hunt for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Bin Laden, the REAL culprits behind the heinous attacks on our country.
And third: DIPLOMACY!!!! You know, actually talking with other nations, instad ofmaking empty threats of nuking everyone to high hell!"
First - Extend a hand of friendship? Are you kidding? We didn't alienate the French, Germans, Russians, et al because President Bush inforced the UN Resolutions (as Authorized by an Act of Congress. Do you understand that? We would never had gone into Iraq had not Congress authorized the use of US Armed Forces against Iraq.). They were up to their collective necks in corruption in the form of bribes from Saddam. They were violating the UN sanctions by selling prohibited weapons to Iraq. They turned their backs on us because they were afraid that Saddam would blow the whistle on the corruption. We don't need to
extend hand of friendship, they need to appologize for their actions during the period prior to the liberation of Iraq.
I will agree that we need their help in fighting terrorism. They can start in their own backyard. They can stop being politically correct when dealing with Islamic extremists. They can deport those who provoke, support, and condone acts of terrorism.
Second, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. We still have nearly 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. Some helping train the Afghan Security Forces. Some providing security. Many Special Ops guys hunting for OBL. Remember, OBL is but one man. His capture or death will not end terrorism.
What about the other terrorist organizations? Do we stop after al Qaeda is destroyed? What about Hamas? Or Hizbollah? Or one of the other 30 terrorist organizations recognized by the US? Or one of the 350 other terrorist organizations recognized by the Federation of American Scientists?
Pulling our troops out of Iraq before the Iraqis are prepared to provide for their own security is irresponsible. But you're a teenager, so you probably haven't learn responsibility.
Why would we want to do pull out? So President Bush's policy of "attacking" at the state-supporters of terrorism will fail? That's playing politics with our national security, something you liberals love to do.
So Iraq will slip back into tyrany? Don't the 25,000,000 Iraqis we liberated deserve better?
Third, exactly how would you use diplomacy towards a terrorist organization whose mission is to destroy you?
I'll agree you can use diplomacy with nation-states, but even some of them are governed by tryants, dictators, and lunatics. How do you use diplomacy with a mass-murderer?
Some day, hopefully, you'll grow up and enter the real world. You'll realize that there are evil people in the world (and no, President Bush is not evil) and sometimes force is needed to remove that evil. That's why we leave defending our nation to men and women, not immature teenagers. Expecially not teenage liberals.
what is this pre-school leo? - if that is not the most asinine, infantile diary. i'm astounded matt and mark give you real estate.
by the way - your boy bush sounded like a belligerent maniac today - dude has totally lost it.
What is preschool, Orange, is the way your party attempts to deal with the security of our nation. I'm merely giving their ideas a fitting response.
What is preschool, Orange--is the way in which your buddies on the democrat side of the aisle attempt to deal with the security of this nation. I'm merely giving their ideas a fitting response.
right psyc - as opposed to the wonders you guys have been working for the past five years. sorry - that dog don't hunt anymore.
Your damned right that we (Our nation) has worked wonders in the past five years.
We accomplished in Afghanistan in a few months what the Russians couldn't do in over six years.
There has not been a terrorist attack on our shores since 9/11/2001; thanks in large part to the NSA terrorist surveillance program and other programs that your buddies are in the business of trying to defeat.
There is now a working, democratic form of government in Iraq, complete with a Constitution.
How long did it take from July 4, 1776 for us to accomplish the same?
We are, almost day by day, handing more and more control to the Iraqi military and police forces, including the exclusive control of more and more Iraqi provinces.
Our military, along with the Iraqi forces, have allowed free elections to take place on several occasions--elections in which the vast majority of Iraqis participated--as a percentage more than participated in our own elections.
And what have the defeatocrats done?
Whined, complained, and whined some more.
Time to lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
Psycmeistr
Nice smackdown, that's gonna leave a mark.
psyc - you insult me and every other reader with a modicum of intelligence with your provided examples.
accomplished what in afghanistan? taliban are back and attacks are increasingly violent. puppet government's constitution is organized around sharia(h) law and (oh) opium production at an all time high... terrorists alive, well, and training in that country.
not been a terrorist attack since 2001? by golly! 5 WHOLE years. let's see, after pearl harbor, it was 60 years before we were attacked on our own shores. this is the biggest canard in the book.
you've got hubris - i'll give you that. the audacity to bring up iraq as part of your supporting argument would have you summarily expelled from a grade-school debate class.
cj is in playing ref. looks like its just you and i psyc.
You're wrong Orange. I have not insulted you. You and your ilk insult yourself in your naieviete, which, if anything, will be the downfall of our nation.
And yes, I not only have the "audacity" to bring up Iraq, but you seem to have the "audacity", not to mention the sheer stupidity to ignore it as a part of a strategy to our overall GWOT, and refuse to acknowledge our accomplishments there.
cj is in playing ref. looks like its just you and i psyc.
Global Warming is part of the War On Terror?????
ROFLMAO!!!! Gotta love the Demokooks for a good laugh.
ok - i apologize for insulting you directly. you have never made it personal and i respect that.
on iraq we have this out today:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060915/D8K5CH7O1.html
No, orangealert, what is truely amazing is that the Democrats, and liberals in general, are not serious about national security and defeating global terrorism.
Here's what you liberals are proposing:
1. No intercepts of terrorist communications. They are free to communicate with their supporters in the US. You'll demand a warrant for each and every intercept (even though the Bush Administration has obtained over 6,000 FISA warrants in the past four years), even when we haven't yet identified who the terrorist is calling.
2. No tracking of terrorist financial transactions. We have no right to pry into the terrorists private financial dealings.
3. No interrogation of captured terrorists without reading them their Miranda rights. Never mind that they are already being treated with kid-gloves, better than your average US prison inmate. And never mind that when the terrorists capture someone, the captured are beheaded on TV for the world to see.
4. No draining the terrorist swamps. Although it is 100% certain that Saddam was providing material support to terrorists, we can't remove him from power, even though there are two acts of Congress authorizing such action.
5. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement action. No pre-emptive action against the terrorists. We let them attack us, they try to track down and prosecute those responsible. That strategy worked great after the 1993 WTC attack. And the Kobhar Towers attack. And the Embassy attacks. And the USS Cole attack.
6. There really isn't a terrorist threat. 9/11 and the 3,000 American killed was a fluke. So what if the Bush Administration has prevented another attack on US Soil. He has exagerated the threat.
7. If we capture or kill OBL, the terrorist threat will end. Hardly a day goes by when a leading Democrat isn't criticising the Bush Administration for failing to kill or capture OBL.
8. The money spent in spreading democracy in the Middle East, where it has NEVER existed before, would be better spent propping up Democrat run failed school systems, expanded entitlements, and fighting global warming (if it is actually occuring), which we haven't caused and probably can't control.
9. US troops will be re-deployed from Iraq to Okinawa, Iceland, Antartica, or some other strategic location. You care not that the Iraqis are not yet prepared to provide for their own security. But who cares. You didn't care that Saddam was murdering Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands, so why would you care if the Baathists or the terrorists take over.
10. We would bow to the demands of the UN and the Euro-weenies in order to get them on-board to fight terrorism. Never mind that they were on the take from Saddam and would have never voted for enforcing the 17 UN Resolutions.
11. If we withdrew from Iraq, the terrorist would put down their arms and live in peace with the rest of the world. They would instantly cease their thousand year war for Islamic domination of the world.
With all those wonderful ideas, I'm sure to sleep well tonight. NOT.
This is from the 'WAR' thread.
-We are AT WAR.
With who? Who is our enemy? It sure isn't the Iraqis - they had no part to play in the 9/11 attacks. btw: has Congress offically declared war?
-WARS are meant to be WON!
Exactly, how do we plan on winning this war?
-If we do not WIN this WAR, our enemies will be emboldened to attack us again, and again, and again, until THEY WIN!
Again, what is the plan to ensure our victory?
-Once THEY win, THE ISLAMOFASCISTS will set the rules on how WE (Yes, that includes you, Swimmer, Reid and Pelosi) are to live!
What a load of crap. Do they have a mobilizing army we need to worry about?
-Much to your amazement, the Islamo-fascists we are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere WANT TO KILL YOU, TOO!
No you idiot, they want us off their lands!
Therefore, George Bush's war on terror, including the war in Iraq, is YOUR WAR TOO!
What part did Iraq play on 9/11? None.
How many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis? None
Did the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda have a coonection? No, they hated Al-Qaeda as much as we do.
Even the Idiot-in-Cheif admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Quit trying to compare apples to oranges.
-Nobody with half a brain, and who values their security and the future security of their children will vote for you, until you start SUPPORTING THE PROTECTION OF YOUR COUNTRY!
Gallup RV 9/7-10/06 41 53 7 12 D
.
ABC RV 9/5-7/06 42 50 9 8 D
.
CNN LV 8/30 - 9/2/06 43 53 4 10 D
.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 8/29-30/06 32 48 21 16 D
.
Newsweek RV 8/24-25/06 38 50 12 12 D
Apparently, the the folks say different.
byw: you should talk, sending our troops into unjust wars without a plan to win, or a plan for stabalizing the region. All you guys have offered is 'stay the course' - how's that been working out for us?
-Playing poltiics with your nation's security WILL NOT EARN YOU POINTS in that area!
This coming from the party that toyed with our vulnability afer 9/11 to invade a country that has nothing to do with the WOT and piting Americans against Ameircans based on their position on the war and the opinion on how to wage it?
Pot, meet kettle.
Have I made myself clear?
No, you ignorant buffon.
The only thing you've proven is your complete ignorance.
You have the stones to say that we're playing politics with the WOT, when the only thing you're party has done but divide our country through cheap slogans like 'you're either with us for the terrorists', instead of a real plan for making us and the world safe?
Here's my plan:
First, we extend the hand of friendship to our Allies we've alienated because of our President's arrogance to go to war without justification. We need the help of all nations to prevent the attack we experinced five years ago.
Second, we get our remaining troops out of Iraq and continue our hunt for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Bin Laden, the REAL culprits behind the heinous attacks on our country.
And third: DIPLOMACY!!!! You know, actually talking with other nations, instad ofmaking empty threats of nuking everyone to high hell!
You've heard my plan, now what's yours?
teenage - before you extend THAT hand to anyone wash it first OK/
You're an idiot. The more you guys post the more the Republican argument that you can't be trusted rings true. I wish that you and orangeanus could go on the Sunday talk shows to do your rants. Really, I do.
I notice that the Democrats have been reigning in the craziest of you wackos (Like Howard Dean) that are in real positions in the party and having their more conservative people do the TV shows. What a crock. Be honest. Let Howard on. Let the Hollywood cazies on. Hell, lets have O'Reilly interview George Soros. I want ALL of America to see who you are and what you beieve.
A-10: A+!!
A-10: A+!!
You're an idiot. The more you guys post the more the Republican argument that you can't be trusted rings true.
I'm the idiot? I even provided a plan to help win the WOT while you guys still spout the 'stay the course' mantra, like a worn-out joke.
Only in Chimpy world, I guess.
"Regarding laughing matters..."
Yeah. The Democrats terrorist coddling and weak-kneed stance on national security is a joke, a sick joke on the American people.
ernge wrongly states...
"let's see, after pearl harbor, it was 60 years before we were attacked on our own shores. this is the biggest canard in the book."
Uh.....just like your hero BC, you ignored the first attack on the twin towers by the Islamic extremists.
Libs today, just like 15 years ago till 2000, are not taking the terrorist threat seriously.
They are still preaching "Bush is using politics of fear....", "we are not safer than we were before 9/11....." etc.etc.
How can we, and those who want to combat terrorism, win a war with obstacle after obstacle, thrown into the mix?
If we are not safer, then it is due to a faction of people who resist anything and everything that Bush has used (used by your hero BC) to find these people. It is also due to like minded thinkers on the other side of the big pond who also have not taken Islamic extremists seriously.
You know them as French, Germans, some English, Spanish etc. etc. etc. They will be overrun because they will not show one ounce of support for GWB. They gave more support to Saddam.
teeny bopper....plan? get real.......more of the same lib baloney that took place in the 90s....real effective while said Islamo-facsist is slicing through your neck in the name of Allah and jihad.
Leo, that was the most immature post yet, not that the quality here was ever real good, but it has gone way down with you posting.
orangealert,
Leo is 46, and I'll bet his IQ is close to the same. I don't think you can say anything that will get through to people like that, unless you chant KILL!, KILL!, KILL!.
I think it's great, I'm all for Leo being a main poster here. I'm sure he ways the opinions of some extreme idiots, but most people will see this blog the way we see Leo. Mark does a good job too.
I swear if you sterilized all the neocons, in one generation the average IQ would jump by 50 points.
democrats are just as patrotic as the people on the right, we want to protect america and stop terrorism just as much as president bush, but the big difference is that democrats do not want to use the military option as the only means of protecting our nation. we can use as much bombs as we want, torture as many prisnors as we can but that will never completly destroy all the terrorists out there becuase there will always be someone else out there that will replace all the ones that have died. we have to win the hearts and minds of the middle eastern people and let them know that the views that they have of americnas is completley the opposite of what the terrorits paint us as. we can do this by first of all not starting a war in iraq that has killed thousands of innocent civilians including many women and children that did nothing wrong. there were no terrorists in iraq to begin with and it had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet we invaded and put terrorits in that country. no wonder people are mad at the us goverment. we should have stayed in afganistan and re built that countrey and made it a democratic country becuaxe if we had our full attention on it it would have been a much better outcome. prsident bush has the right mind set of trying to make america safe but his approach has been wrong and in the end i do not think we will ever win the war on terror if we keep on doing what we aredoing because as we can see in the news many civilians are dying each day so are troops and there is no excuse for their deaths and it is very tragic that died for these reasons.
I can see that the liberals--again, living in their JOYLESS EXISTENCE--could not detect SATIRE or SNARK if it hit them in their face. Especially when it is portraying their own.
I'm glad I got under your skin-- I guess I must have hit a nerve.
But remember folks, in order for satire and/or snark to work, it has to have a grain of truth.
And the truth is, that the democrat "plan" to ensure the safety of our nation is, at best, laughable.
I can see that the liberals--again, living in their JOYLESS EXISTENCE--could not detect SATIRE or SNARK if it hit them in their face. Especially when it is portraying their own.
I'm glad I got under your skin-- I guess I must have hit a nerve.
But remember folks, in order for satire and/or snark to work, it has to have a grain of truth.
And the truth is, that the democrat "Mr. Rogers plan" (not to mention their faux intentions) to ensure the
"safety: of our nation is, at best, laughable.
Oh yes, and James...
Our collective IQs are indeed rising, since you and your ilk appear hellbent on aborting your progeny.
Yes teenage - you're an idiot. Your plan had important details like make friends and use diplomacy. Yep... idiot. I stand by it.
Yeah, I guess your bigotry is pretty funny, Mark. If you think hanging blacks from trees is funny too. Grade-A racism right, Mark, except now the target is the Left.
Leo, you seem to have missed that I'm not on the left. I also don't stand for abortion, or gun control. I have 3 kids and an arsenal. I am against Bush because he is an idiot with a power trip. There are more reasons for my disapproval of Bush, and not one has to do with the Democrats.
And I'm a 16 year old blonde pig farmer from Germany.
But I guess I'll have to take your word for it, James.
I see the "teenage liberal" has gotten up from his nap and his mommy has let him use the computer again.
"With who? Who is our enemy? It sure isn't the Iraqis - they had no part to play in the 9/11 attacks. btw: has Congress offically declared war?"
Our enemy are Islamo-fascist terrorists who have stated their goal of converting, subjugating, or killing all infidels. First on their list are the Israelis and Americans. You are right that the majority of Iraqis are not our enemy. However, prior to the regime change in Iraq, Saddam's regime was a major supporter of terrorism. So he gets lumped together with al Qeada and other terrorist organization and with Iran and other state supporters of terrorism.
What Congress did in 1998 was enact the Iraq Liberation Act which made the official policy of the US Government to work towards regime change in Iraq. They also passed laws in 2001 and 2002 Authorizing the Use of the US Armed Forces against Global Terrorism and Iraq, respectively. This is tanamount to a declaration of war.
"Exactly, how do we plan on winning this war?"
By the use of economic, diplomatic, political, cultural, and military means to reduce global terrorism to the smallest level possible. By offering those who would turn to terrorism an alternative - freedom and democracy - we hope to make terrorism as a movement a thing of the past. We have no choice but to fight terrorism. While I do not believe that the US could ever be destroyed by Islamic-Fascists - we would nuke Mecca, Medina, and all other bastions of Islamic terrorism before we would be destroyed, I am not convinced that the terrorists could shape Europe and other additional parts of the world into Islamic-terrorist states. Thus, our leadership and actions to fight Islamic-Fascist Terrorism is done for the benefit of Western Civilization. IF Europe and other regions don't want to live under Sharia Law, they need to wake up and join the fight.
"Again, what is the plan to ensure our victory?"
Read The National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism and The National Security Strategy.
"What a load of crap. Do they have a mobilizing army we need to worry about?"
In a way they do. Tens of thousands of redical Islamic-Fascists who are willing to strap bombs on their backs and blow up innocents, who are willing to highjack airplanes and fly them in to occupied building with the intent of killing tens of thousands, who are willing to use biological or chemical weapons if given the chance.
What would you prefer: Living in a world where there are tens of thousands of terrorists bent on the destruction of the west, who could plant a bomb in the restaurant you are eating in tomorrow, or on the bus or plane you might ride in, or could poison the water you drink. There are people in London, and Tokyo, and Paris, and Tel Aviv, and Bali, and New York who live in this fear every day. Or a world where we don't have to worry about where the next terrorist attack will occur because we have killed or captured most of the existing terrorists, we have established democracy as an alternate to terrorism, and we have made being a terrorist to risky.
"What part did Iraq play on 9/11? None.
How many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis? None
Did the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda have a coonection? No, they hated Al-Qaeda as much as we do.
Even the Idiot-in-Cheif admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Quit trying to compare apples to oranges."
Your immature teenage brain just doesn't get it, does it? This is not just about al Qeada. It is not just about Iraq. It is about ending terrorism everywhere. It is about using a variety of means to stop countries from supporting terrorism, as Iraq was doing under Saddam.
Our efforts boil down to two primary objectives: (1) Disrupt, destroy, and disband terrorist organizations throughout the world. (2) Prevent countries from supporting terrorism. Without countries allowing financial support, allowing or providing training support, providing logistical support, or harboring terrorists, terrorism will quickly end. If the terrorists have no money, have no access to the tools of terrorism, have no capability to train terrorists, and have no place from which to base their operations, they cannot succeed.
Our plan to combat terrorism has been logical, methodical, and effective. We first targeted those who attacked us on 9/11 - al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan. The Taliban was helping to finance, train, and harbor these terrorists. They were given the ultimatum to turn over the terrorists to the US. They refused. They were quickly removed from power and replaced with a democratically elected government - the first democratically elected government Afghanistan has ever had. While 75% of al Qeada's leadership has been killed or captured and thousands of its terrorists killed or captured, there is still work to be done in Afghanistan bringing stability to the country.
We then turned our sights on state-supporters of terrorism. We had many choices: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and others. But only one had recently attacked two of its neighbors. Only one had developed and used WMD against its neighbors and its own people. Only one was in Material Breach of a UN Cease-fire and 17 UN Resolutions. Only one was committing acts of War by shooting at US Aircraft and has attempted to assassinate a former US President. Additionally, this country was financing terrorism ($25,000 payments to suicide-bomber families), was training terrorists, and was harboring terrorists. Saddam was given the opportunity to leave Iraq peacefully and allow the Iraqis to have free, democratic elections. He refused. So the US, acting with a coalition of over 25 partners, inforced the UN Resolutions Iraq was violating.
As a result of our actions in Iraq, other countries have come to their senses and renounced terrorism and have disbanded their WMD programs. No shots were fired. No missiles were launched. But Libya gave up its WMD Programs.
So you see, there is a tie between Iraq under Saddam and al Qaeda. They are both elements of terrorism. One formerly a state-supporter of terrorism. One a terrorist organization. They need not have scones and tea together to be allied in their war against civilization.
"byw: you should talk, sending our troops into unjust wars without a plan to win, or a plan for stabalizing the region. All you guys have offered is 'stay the course' - how's that been working out for us?"
The War in Iraq is unjust only in your immature teenage mind. What is unjust about stopping the develoment of WMD by a rogue nation? What is unjust about preventing a state-supporter of terrorism from providing WMD to terrorists? What is unjust about stopping a tyrant from murdering hundreds of thousands of his citizens?
We actually won the War in Iraq. That was accomplished in less than three weeks. Much faster, with less loss of live than any previous invasion of a country. That plan succeeded quit nicely. What we are doing now is preparing the Iraqis to provide for their own security in a democratic way. Not by terrorizing their own people, but by preventing those who would return Iraq to a police state from regaining power. Nearly 75% of Iraq is peaceful and under Iraqi control. Once the remaining 25% is turned over to the Iraqi Security Forces, there will be a marked reduction in US Armed Forces. So you see, there is a plan. There always was a plan. It was adjusted as conditions on the ground dictated.
"This coming from the party that toyed with our vulnability afer 9/11 to invade a country that has nothing to do with the WOT and piting Americans against Ameircans based on their position on the war and the opinion on how to wage it?"
See above. Iraq has everything to do with the GWOT. You just refuse to accept it.
As for an opinion on how to wage the GWOT, I am still waiting for a liberal/Democrat plan for fighting and winning the GWOT. All I see are losing suggestions as I outlined at 4:15 above.
"Here's my plan:
First, we extend the hand of friendship to our Allies we've alienated because of our President's arrogance to go to war without justification. We need the help of all nations to prevent the attack we experinced five years ago.
Second, we get our remaining troops out of Iraq and continue our hunt for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Bin Laden, the REAL culprits behind the heinous attacks on our country.
And third: DIPLOMACY!!!! You know, actually talking with other nations, instad ofmaking empty threats of nuking everyone to high hell!"
First - Extend a hand of friendship? Are you kidding? We didn't alienate the French, Germans, Russians, et al because President Bush inforced the UN Resolutions (as Authorized by an Act of Congress. Do you understand that? We would never had gone into Iraq had not Congress authorized the use of US Armed Forces against Iraq.). They were up to their collective necks in corruption in the form of bribes from Saddam. They were violating the UN sanctions by selling prohibited weapons to Iraq. They turned their backs on us because they were afraid that Saddam would blow the whistle on the corruption. We don't need to
extend hand of friendship, they need to appologize for their actions during the period prior to the liberation of Iraq.
I will agree that we need their help in fighting terrorism. They can start in their own backyard. They can stop being politically correct when dealing with Islamic extremists. They can deport those who provoke, support, and condone acts of terrorism.
Second, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. We still have nearly 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. Some helping train the Afghan Security Forces. Some providing security. Many Special Ops guys hunting for OBL. Remember, OBL is but one man. His capture or death will not end terrorism.
What about the other terrorist organizations? Do we stop after al Qaeda is destroyed? What about Hamas? Or Hizbollah? Or one of the other 30 terrorist organizations recognized by the US? Or one of the 350 other terrorist organizations recognized by the Federation of American Scientists?
Pulling our troops out of Iraq before the Iraqis are prepared to provide for their own security is irresponsible. But you're a teenager, so you probably haven't learn responsibility.
Why would we want to do pull out? So President Bush's policy of "attacking" at the state-supporters of terrorism will fail? That's playing politics with our national security, something you liberals love to do.
So Iraq will slip back into tyrany? Don't the 25,000,000 Iraqis we liberated deserve better?
Third, exactly how would you use diplomacy towards a terrorist organization whose mission is to destroy you?
I'll agree you can use diplomacy with nation-states, but even some of them are governed by tryants, dictators, and lunatics. How do you use diplomacy with a mass-murderer?
Some day, hopefully, you'll grow up and enter the real world. You'll realize that there are evil people in the world (and no, President Bush is not evil) and sometimes force is needed to remove that evil. That's why we leave defending our nation to men and women, not immature teenagers. Expecially not teenage liberals.
orange,
RE: "... as opposed to the wonders you guys have been working for the past five years. sorry - that dog don't hunt anymore."
It's that useless liberal dog that "don't hunt no more". It never has and never will... it's on welfare!
Speaking of wonders, I wonder if you know how the government works. I wonder if you know how the liberals have blocked Republican efforts over the past 5 years. Do you forget that we have some RINOs in Congress who vote along with the Democrats to block key issues. I wonder if you under stand how those actual or threatened liberal Democrat filibusters keep legislation from even coming to a vote! Until we get a super majority of real Conservatives in both houses of Congress, there is no way to stop you liberals from blocking and obstructing. It's a wonder all right. It's a wonder we get anything done with liberal involved in government.
And just what have the liberal Democrats been doing for 5 years. Liberals have been doing all they can to create, foster, spread, and perpetuate as much hatred as possible. Liberals have waged an never ending 24/7 hate campaign against President Bush and America. Liberals have done all they possibly can to create hatred and divisiveness throughout America. Liberals have used their incessant anti-Bush, anti-American, and anti-military rhetoric and propaganda campaign to spread and create hatred for America throughout the world. Liberals have weakened President Bush's ability to deal with security issues like Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Liberals have done all they can to expose our defense secrets and block efforts to fight terrorists and protect America. Liberals have encouraged and emboldened terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan along with tens of thousands of their families and citizens. Liberals have provided fuel and fodder for terrorists and our enemies, for their anti-American propaganda, and for recruiting more terrorists. Liberals have weakened America's image and influence abroad. And the list goes on and on and on!
I already know your liberal responses. Denial, blame President Bush, and say "it ain't so"!
You liberals can't see or understand the facts or the results of your actions... or more accurately, you don't care and you don't want others to see or understand the damage your actions have done to America!
AAR
Wow James, you sure like to talk about IQ's alot. Are you insecure or something? 3 kids and an arsenal? Well if that's true(questionable) then hope is not all lost for you! I'LL BE PRAYING FOR YOU!!!
teenie,
Make sure you have a living will so someone doesn't mistakenly "pull the plug" due to apparent brain inactivity!
AAR
Not much to say after AAR and A-10 take the kids to the woodshed...
What is so funny/sad/scary is that to a Lib, teenie's "plan" really seems like a plan to them.
Grovel to the nations who want to have it both ways, attacking us in public while secretly hoping we will do what they don't have the courage or integrity to do. Apologize for seeing a worldwide threat, recogniziing it, and addressing it. Beg for 'forgiveness' and promise we will never never ever act in our own self-interest again with asking permission first. And promise to become more like them.
Then we pull a Saigon on our allies and friends in Iraq, go back on our word to them, and tuck our tails between our yellow-stained legs and slink off like good little Liberals, leaving them to mass reprisals and slaughter, just as we did to our allies and friends in Southeast Asia when we let the lunatics run the asylum in the 70's. )We 'justify' this through an Orwellian construct of fighting terrorists by running away from them.
Finally, we TALK. Group hugs, anyone! This paragraph is particularly indicative of the lunacy of teenie and his teenie pals. We ARE talking. We ARE using diplomacy. And no, we are NOT "...making empty threats of nuking everyone to high hell!"
(However, given your opposition to Bolton, it appears that YOUR definition of "diplomacy" is dropping trou and grabbing ankles.)
If you people would stop inventing crap to support your lunatic hate-based theories, you might not sound so goofy.
Which President do you tbink Bin Laden liked more? Clinton or Bush?
Which President do you think Saddaam liked more? Clinton or Bush?
Which President do you think the socialist nations of Europe liked best? Clinton or Bush?
Which party do you think any or all of these entities would prefer to see in office after the 2008 elections? Democrat or Republican?
Hint: OSB is parroting Dem talking points in his tapes, obviously trying to get another Dem in office. Ever wonder why? Teenie might think it is because he is really concerned about the well-being and future of our great nation...but then, we all know what kind of grasp teenie has on reality.
BTW---orange is one short step away from yellow....
You weren't drinking Pepsi while you were reading this, were you?
Almiranta
You forgot to ask:
Which President do you think the Americans liked best? Clinton or Bush?
But you would have to spin that answer to show how it's the lefts fault.
OSB is parroting Dem talking points in his tapes, obviously trying to get another Dem in office.
You really, really don't get this, do you? You really are that foolish and blind, aren't you?
When Bin Laden released that tape, what was the conclusion inside CIA and NSC meetings? What did the people who study, track, and actively combat bin Laden think? Bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist in Bush's reelection. Bin Laden knows what he's doing when he releases a tape. He only releases one for specific strategic reasons. In this case, his position as Al Qaeda's leader would be supported by continuing to fight it out with Bush--Bush and bin Laden provide each other with boogeymen, you see. Just as Bush uses bin Laden as a scare tactic and to say, "I will protect you from him," bin Laden does the same thing with Bush.
And just as the Soviets liked having Nixon as president because Nixon was very predictable, bin Laden likes having Bush as president. Bin Laden wanted to draw US forces into a military quagmire versus Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Bush gave him what he wanted. Of course binLaden is going to want to continue getting what he wants, and that means keeping Bush around.
So, what does it say about US policy that bin Laden would want Bush to get reelected and continue pursuing those policies? C'mon, Almy, think. At least try to think.
James Harold,
The Presidency is not and should not be a popularity contest. The nation should not be run by opinion polls and focus groups.
We elect leaders. We expect our President to make the tough decisions based on what is best for the United States of American. Not on what is in the best interests of his personal legacy.
We expect him to have high ethical standards. We do not expect our President to have sexual encounters with junior interns and then lie to the entire country about it.