Jorge, I believe it was George Bush Sr. that was in charge then. (And yes, I agree that he should have "finished the job").

And didn't Clinton get in trouble because of his balls? :)

So I'm supposed to believe what some liberal fasist writes in a book..
You are totally a moron.. and besides what the Hell does that have to with what is going on right now!! That wasn't Bush's administration..either.. I can tell you are form the Bay Area.. probably San Francisco too..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

I hope the upcoming battle in Iraq will be a terrible and swift one. I hope no American or English or Australian families are saddened by the loss of someone dear to them, and I feel the same for Iraqi families whose only involvement in this conflict is the now unfortunate happenstance of where they were born.

I fear that this battle, along with the one the U.S. of A. is still fighting in Afganistan, is going to fuel the machine of terrorism. It is terrorism we are fighting a war against, isn't it? I don't see how keeping WMD out of the hands of terrorists is a winning stategy in this war. The trade center was brought down with boarding passes and box cutters.

I believe Americans are on the road to surrendering many, if not most, of their personal freedoms and privacy. Some will surrender grudgingly, others happily, for the false promise of safety and security. And that, my friend, will be when we have lost the war.

Ed

Dude.. after Bosnia. Clinton Bombed Iraq when Saddan Kicked out the Unsom inspectors.. and he did not follow thru..I can assure you the Job will get done.. With GW

Jorge (Targa Dude)

Ed, superb commentary. With war looming, I overlooked the issues you mentioned. It's possible we are seeing this reponse to terrorism due to the fact we're using a post-Cold War style military against a 21st century adversary. If we give up freedoms, then in some ways the terrorists will have some victory.

Targa Dude, calm down. I'm a die-hard conservative, but I don't see how calling others morons makes your point any stronger.

Jurgen

OK, I appologize to all.. Shhsss I been waiting for this for a long time..It's been so dam fustrating..I'm extrememly Patriotic.. and I'm most definately a conservative. and I love my country and nor will I ever forget..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

hey now...us targa guys gotta stick together!

ooppss....itche mouse finger....

GW1 should have finished the job...Im just curious as to why he didnt?

Chad.. I'm sorry.. you do have all the rights to your own opinions..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

:) no prob....:D

Okay, play nice. . .. the liberals have got to be feeling down about now.

They need a little motivation to get over their feelings of impotence.

Here's a little graphic the liberals all can rally around.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...ratination.jpg

TIC:cool:

GW must have had that poster in his dorm room at college

Yeah, maybe. but I'm still waiting for even a glimer of an action plan from the left.

All they've got is "war - bad . . killing - bad . . .Bush is mean" --!Brilliant :rolleyes:

It's classic; uninformed or unwilling to believe the nature of the problem.
They see the path of no work now . . .Paint Bush as the one needed to be stopped; rather than facing up to the seriously sick sheit Saddam continues to do.

hey, I'm an isolationist. Countries don't like us? We'll take our foreign aid and go home.

Alternatively, I'm more of a covert ops kinda guy. Just pay to have his throat slit and move on...

I use to be of the same thinking. 9/11 changed that for me; on that day. It was the wake-up call that a suit-case nuke could be right around the corner. If these mad men want that type of power, they have to earn it the old fashion way . . . .with the correct poster in their dorm room. :rolleyes:

Times have changed.

Did anybody hear Sadaam's threat to take the war worldwide. With what weapons, I ask? I guess with the ones he doesn't really have. Better to clip his wings now than having to deal with taking the war worldwide with a nuke!

Nobody needs a war, but if we leave peace to the UN, many more rogue regimes will prosper enough to threaten us again. What has the UN done for anybody except debate the merits of intervention without action. To do nothing is foolish. My two cents.

Support our troops. They volunteer to protect our freedom!

Is the concept of the "lesser of two evils" that hard to understand? So what if we supported Iraq years ago against Iran? We felt Iraq was the lesser of two evils, AT THAT TIME. Things change. Italy and Japan were our enemies at one time, now they are not. Is this too terribly complex? If not, WHY keep bringing up the fact that Iraq was once a country we sided with in a different war? That is a simplistic, heavily flawed argument.

I won't quote conservatives about this issue. How about I quote the heroes of the modern day liberals? Are you ready? Prepare to see the hypocrite in your mirror. I know it's a little bit of reading, but this is part of the reason why so many people have no respect for the liberal political position du jour. By the way, I couldn't make up stuff this good!


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16, 1998) -- President Bill Clinton Wednesday defended his decision to order airstrikes against Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein had failed his "one last chance" to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. "So we've had to act and act now."

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.


or how about the man who "Should" be president today?:rolleyes:


Washington -- Vice President Al Gore, interviewed by CNN's Larry King late December 16, 1998 explained why the United States felt obliged to strike at Iraq's Saddam Hussein earlier in the day.

"We tried to make this inspection regime work, and Saddam would not cooperate. In fact, he obstructed the inspectors. And so we are going to take the other alternative available to us, to use our military to degrade his ability to get weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors. We'll make an assessment whenever this military action is completed. If, at some point in the future he decides to try to continue to threaten his neighbors and get weapons of mass destruction, we may have to do it again."


How about?


December 16, 1998 -- Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen [Also participating in the briefing was Gen. Henry H. Shelton, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has clear military goals. We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations.


One more:


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesman

December 16, 1998
Q: Madame Secretary, you've said that you talked to more than a dozen of your counterparts today. France, since these strikes have started, has issued a statement saying that it disassociated itself from the military action. My question is, what are they telling you about the reasons that, in effect, the US and Britain are acting alone?


SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that basically they have felt that Saddam Hussein needs to comply, and they have approached it from a different way. But the truth is they have no answers as to how to make them comply. I think that we have support from a number of countries. I feel very satisfied with the overall support -- not only for diplomatic purposes, but I think that Secretary Cohen has also indicated that we have the kind of support we need in order to carry out our mission.

The bottom line is that it would be very nice if those who do not
support our approach had an approach that worked. We have not been able -- either they, through their diplomatic efforts, or we through ours -- to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply. I think we've been at this, as I've said -- in the last year there have been over four crises with Saddam Hussein. I think the important point that I have made as I've made my calls is that we have to break this cycle. Unless people have an answer that works, I think they can go their own way.

Well, I'm not feeling any impotence at the moment, I live in a great nation where people are supposed to be free to disagree with their government, unlike Iraq and many other places. This small irony seems to be lost on the "love it or leave it" crowd.

And being called a moron by someone who can't spell "fascist" is always good for a chuckle. :D And what this has to do with what is going on now is that you, targadude, posted that "our troops will be fighting for democracy", when the last time we were there we were not. When one African nation invades another where no oil wells are involved, we send a letter of condolence.

I seriously question the truthfulness of the info we have been supplied by our own government regarding the immediate threat to Americans from Iraq, as do many other informed people. They, Bush and company, have had to do some serious backpeddling recently when what the inspectors turns up does not match the pre-sold scenario of Sadam's arsenal. NO credible evidence of a nuclear program or links to Al Queda. I'm surprised that they could not even plant something to bolster their case, with all of the time and personnel we have had over there.

Furthermore, I agree with Ed that the threat of terrorism is raised by this policy, the reason that much of the world feels that military intervention should only be used when absolutely all other options have been exhausted is because of this and many other nightmare scenarios even if we kick their asses fast, which we most likely will. This has all the possibility of having long term repercussions for the western world, IMO. :cool:

hmmmmm.... U boyz prejudices are showing again........right war wrong PR approach....Bush apparently down't care about spin or PR.....He seem more like TR "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The administration is of the opinion that America has a self interest and is going to persue it, even if others doen't like it.....and they aren't going to tell those others we feel your pain while we stick it in em.

The marketing strategy is to tell the people it's about WMD.which is true but not the whole truth...there is more to it besides oile or revenge I might add.

As far as terrorism goes....how much more could islamic fundamentalists hate the USA....isn't blowing up the WTC hate enough...so that arguement don't hold H2O.

The message that the WTC sent to the world is that the USA better be able to step up to the plate and be able to hit the ball or the USA was going to lose the game. I think the "lose the game" part is whats incomprensible to liberal Americans. I don't think they can fathom that the USA can lose.

How do we do the job better, eh?
 

OK, since you seem to have such a great information source, what is the better course of action? How has the US government deceived and manipulated the populace? Also, you claim the Bush administration wasn't prepared for the lack of evidence. Have the inspectors really dug up a lot of information in the past 12 years? Have you seen reports and accounts from past inspectors in which the Iraqi military confiscated the inspector's documents? Have you heard about inspectors arriving at one gate, while Iraqis were hauling out secret equipment and supplies out the opposite gate? Do you think Saddam and his henchmen have the wings of angels now? If Bush has any sense, past history will tell him there was little hope for the inspections.

I sense many anti-war sentiments are purely anti-Bush rants. I don't see much argument about why we shouldn't go to war. Bush needs to take more public speaking classes. He strikes me as a person who doesn't care about pleasing everyone. However, the actions he has taken are decisive and merey a continuation of past administrations.

Covert ops? Isn't that like the time we helped Iraq in the early 80s, or the time we overthrew Iran. During the 1990s, our intelligence community took a big hit. CIA claims we don't have a meaningful ground intelligence presence in the Middle East. We got caught with our pants down, and now our reaction is based on our current capabilities... shoot now, ask questions later.

It would be interesting to come back to this thread 6 months or 1 years from now. What will have changed? Will I still be full of sh~t? Will France still be occupied by pu55ies? Will someone shoot that guy Simon on American Idol?

Jurgen