josh wrote: So - what would your plan be Mr President?
josh wrote:Never Should Have Gone?
What would your recommendation have been Mr President HEAD in the face of massive evidence of WMD (foget that it was ultimately not accurate - most everyone, Democrats included believed it was accurate), evidence of terrorist support, history of aggression against the US and US allies, and the fact that we had just been attacked by terrorists on our own soil? If you were president and you were faced with all of that evidence what would you have done?
9/11 changed everything. It was no longer safe to allow terrorists and counties who support terrorism to have a free pass. 9/11 forced us to confront the evilness of Islamofascism head on. You don't get a second chance at diplomacy once they have set off a nuclear weapon in the US. If a terrorist country or regime is pursuing nuclear/bilogical/chemical weapons you have to act. What did UN diplomacy get us in Iran...in Iraq...in North Korea?
So - what would your plan be Mr President?
josh wrote: If I am not mistaken, the "people who attacked us" burned up in the crash. So that meant that we had to go after those responsible for harboring, training, financing, and equiping such terrorists. And if you think that list begins and ends with Afghanistan then you do not pay much attention to world affairs.
And the proof is where????? And I am not talking about what Rush, Hannity or Coulter said.josh wrote: Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 - arguable, but happy to concede that point. He had everything to do with financing and training others who would have been more than happy to pull off their own 9/11.
josh wrote: I don't have time now to dispell the Bin Laden hated Sadam myth...but when people recite that mantra, I know...not think...but KNOW that they have almost zero correct information about the workings of the Middle East.
josh wrote:In 1998 when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the indictment said, "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
In October 2002, George Tenet warned the Senate, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade."
Nearly 80 senators also believed that connection when they cited reasons to go to war against Saddam: ". . . Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
josh wrote:Iraq not only gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, but also paid the families of West Bank suicide bombers $25,000 rewards.
skiing1974 wrote:of course the surge works short term. even bigger surge will do even better. again, short term. what is the plan long term though? US can not have 140,000+ troops there for the next 100 years. the surge works, but the peace is not sustainable without that surge and without troop presence. I was never for the stupid war there, I am just analyzing what now after what's been done has been done. Miserable foreign policy continues, rule by force, arrogance and ignorance. Kosovo just another example.
Al wrote:The high estimates of what the war would cost were laughed at, but now we have far surpassed even though estimates.
Al wrote:Sometimes I think a few people (not all of course) in the military just want the war to go on so they can keep their jobs.
Al wrote:I think by being there we are creating more hate and doing very little good.
Al wrote:I don't think the Iraq war was about oil.
Al wrote:I don't think you can trust "gov't intelligence" anymore.
Al wrote:I think Democrats will be in control again in 2009.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests