we haven't stepped back? you're kidding right?

we went from being praised and cheered to being hated and suicide bombed. We have yet to rebuild anything there aside from a few school and makeshift hospitals, no coherant or even semi-coherant goverment is in place and we supposedly turn the country over to iraq in 6 weeks.

The police force we were supposed to build, might as well send some cubscouts over there with bb guns, theyd probably be more effective then the shit security that's in place now.

and so what he had them 10 years ago, 5 years ago or even a year ago, NEWSFLASH WE HAVE THEM TOO! so this WMD excuse is just that, an excuse to be in iraq on bush's criminal agenda.

You think because you live in america that our being there is allowable? How is our killing of innocent iraqi's any different then the exact same terrorism we're supposedly fighting? Because Bush say's it's ok, it's not terrorism in some form? Kidding yourself

I don't get how you people can sit there and second-guess your president and your government and your military and pass yourselves off as knowing more than them about what the threat situaion is on the world.


Let's see here, a little comparisson.......

The president, US gov't & US military ---- privy to 1000's of intel reports from middle east operatives.

You --- privy to what the news networks tell you.

The president, US gov't & US military ---- Constantly talking with foreign leaders, foriegn delegates, diplomats, etc.

You --- Talking to.... ? Anyone that might actually know something first-hand? I doubt it.

The president, US gov't & US military ---- Comprised of 1000's of professional soldiers, trained operatives, elected officials. Their decisions are based on many informed opinions.

You --- Do I really need to say it?



I don't see where you or anyone else is in a position to be saying what should be "priority 1", or what constitutes a threat, or what Hussein's intentions were for that matter. You guys just don't know, and there is little chance that you could know, at least with any certainty.


Not calling you out or anything, I'm just calling (again) for people to stick to saying what they know rather than what they think, when it comes to this war issue.

Ok, do I really have to argue something you should have learned for yourself six months ago? For fucks sake, pick up a newspaper.

Bin Laden attacked a US ship, so Clinton ordered the CIA to kill him at any cost. 3 times they had a shot and 3 times they backed out. Çlinton also stops several major terrorist attacks like the Millennium bombing that would have been as bad or worse than 9/11. His obsession with terrorism was laughed off my right wingers as something to take attention from Monica.

In comes George Bush, he stops paying attention to terrorism and starts going after Ronald Reagan's wet dream of weaponizing space. His complete incompetence allows 9/11 to happen. He then tries to start a war with Iraq right away, but decides to wait a while and send a few troops into Afghanistan first. Rumsfeld is actually quoted as saying he wants to hit Iraq, not Afghanistan, because there are "no good targets in Afghanistan". Then they fabricate a story about WMD and invade a defenseless country to get rid of 1 man. 3 years have passed since Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans and he's still out there planning attacks. Afghanistan is still not under control. Bush has taken the money and resources needed to fight terror and used them for his make believe war.

This was all spelled out in the 9/11 hearings and Woodward's book. Come on not even the right wing pundits are comparing Bush to Clinton on terrorism after that.

I realize I am playing arm chair general. Aren't 99.9% of the people participating in this thread? Its just my opinion based on the information provided to me (by US media as well as information from friends in Iraq, friends in other countries and the media access they have) as well as my own thoughts.

Its a mess over there. That I do know. Friends coming back from Iraq are living breathing proof of it.

In regards to being priority 1 or not we shall see. 1 shell and a Middle East that has never been more volatile is the result of this great liberation so far.

That's the way to go about it. Second-guess your president by voting him the hell out of office.

I said just yesterday how it's kind of funny that the US dollar is magically strengthening as we approach election time. I don't know why it seems coincidental, but it does. A conservative with a degree in economics could probably explain it away I'm sure.

The outcome of this election will be interesting. I'll say that much.

I've never heard of anyone (other than Saddam himself) saying the ceasefire wasn't broken when inspectors were expelled. Wow! Do you actually expect people to take you seriously?

The U.K/U.S/France setup "No Flight Zones" to enforce U.N resolution 688 in order to stop Saddams aggression from the Kurds, the key word here again is "enforce" no one else is doing the "enforcing"

Exactly... the US has way more weapons of mass destruction, and they don't have any more right to posses those weapons than Iraq does.

Try to read it:

it's the only way we can turn this country around is to vote him out, or hope airforce one slams into the side of a mountain somewhere.

The bottom line is Iraq never declared war on US. They just stood their ground when the US attacked. How many Americans had died in the hands of Iraqis before US attacked them? And haw many Iraqis have been killed by US since the Gulf war? We strapped guided bombs to the belly of the white dove and sent it to the middle east and we still have the nerve to expect them to love us.

There is only one way to win the war on terrorism. Get your troops out of all foreign countries. You can't use the excuse that you are protecting your interest there. Do you have the right to stand in front of Walmart with a machine gun if you're interested in buying something from there? You can only protect your interest with guns after the transaction has been made and the goods are delivered.

As for preemptive strike, when have you ever heard of such a defense? I punched him first because I thought he was gonna punch me later. This is the redneck mentality that gets people into fights at a ho-down. Except now we've gotten hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders killed. Oh, yeah. I'm SURE Bush is doing God's work!

The truth is most Americans love to hate. They LOVE wars. They jump up for a high five every time a bomb blows up a brown guy on a bicycle. All this is just for their entertainment. If they hated wars "like they claim" there were thousands of ways to avoid it before. Instead of working on ways to get rid of Sadam peacefully while we had PLENTY of time, they spent all their time and effort on convincing everyone that war was inevitable and prudent.

You now have innocent blood on your hands, America, and all your flag waving and patriotic bravados will not wash it off. You are being observed very closely and scores are being recorded very accurately. And you are slipping in evolutionary chart very fast. Better open your eyes and climb out soon or you will go down in history as the "worst" country in the world.

Ok, I get what you're saying now. He probably did break the ceasefire but it was the UN's job to deal with it rather than the US and UK. Fair enough. I still say the day the ceasefire was broken the UN should have ended the ceasefire and if the UN was unwilling which it turned out to be then the US should have done so.

Are you saying 9/11 wouldn't have happened under President Clinton? because the whole plot was about five years in the making, executed within a year Bush took office, there were numerous intelligence reports that referred to islamic terrorist groups plotting on hijacking commercial planes to use as weapons (which likewise Bush had access too) the millenium plot was foiled more by the suspicious behavior of the terrorists at the U.S boarder than specific intelligence, they actually suspected the person of being a drug smuggler rather than a terrorist

I'm not saying either of Bush, or Clinton made good decisions, I'm saying the main difference in the handling of both countries (Afghanistan/Iraq) is because of the different approach by each president in their handling of both problems.

I'm not God, I can't tell you if 9/11 would have happened under Clinton or not. The one thing that the facts do show is that we would have had a 99% better chance of stopping it if Clinton was in office. We also would have had a 100% better chance or Clinton doing something appropriate in response, not starting a war with the wrong country. If Clinton was still in power Bin Laden would have been killed 2 years ago and we wouldn't have this mess in Iraq, that much is obvious. This whole war is going to do nothing but create more "backlash", which is what the pentagon calls it when their killing of people creates terrorists.

One thing I will give George Bush credit for, if the cold war starts up again, he's the man for the job. Keep in mind he's STILL going to spend trillions on star wars instead of actually doing anything about terrorism.

You're right, there is a HUGE difference between these two Presidents. Clinton looks at each situation and does what he thinks is best, and in his case most of the time it turns out to be. Bush does everything based on an ideology, it doesn't matter what the situation calls for or what's best for the people. He never has to worry about being wrong, because in his own mind he was always right all along.

1993 WTC bombing was linked to Al-Qaeda,
1996 Truck Bombing of American Barracks at Khobar towers, 1998 Al-Qaeda attacked American interests overseas with the killing of 224 people in the Embassy bombings in Africa, 200 U.S.S Cole etc, I don't think he would have killed him "two years ago" the fact is he was as much a threat in Clintons era, and he could have killed him, but didn't.

As much a threat? As much a threat as he was after 9/11? :eek7

You're obviously a kid who didn't follow politics way back during the Clinton years. When he bombed Afghanistan all the TV stations shit themselves and called it a "war for Monica", sending any ground troops would have been no less then grounds for impeachment. Oh, and the republican controled house wasn't going to approve it. This is what republicans do when real Preisdents try to fight real wars.

Since you obviously didn't pay attention to the 9/11 hearings, I'll say it again. Clinton told the CIA to kill Bin Laden after each of those incidents. George Tenet testified to this and said that each time the CIA fucked it up in one way or another. Bush was handed all kinds of information about Bin Laden such as briefings called "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the USA", and he ignored them to focus on star wars and going on vacation. The entire Bush administration fucked up and let 9/11 happen, it's all there in black and white. Pay attention, do a little reading for yourself instead of just taking in 8 minute news briefs.

oh the irony of it all!! lol

He was a threat long before 9/11, he had already attempted to destroy the world trade center with a bomb laced with cyanide if you recall? his plan was the same, to topple the towers by causing one to fall into the other.

It seems both Presidents blame the C.I.A for not doing X,Y,Z however both had intelligence and events laid out for them? I had even read that the Sudanese government had made offers to the Clinton Administration to surrender Bin Laden, however Clinton went through the United States Justice Department for answers to "holding" Bin Laden, rather than the C.I.A "killing him" route.

Both Presidents are attempting to slip out of the "blame noose" and change their story to suit?

See how easy it is to come to incorrect assumptions when you're only playing with 1/2 the facts? You have a nice little idea in your head there but unfortunately that's not what the facts support at all. Keep thinking what you want, I don't give a fuck... there aren't enough stupid people in the entire world to vote Bush in this time. One term wonders, like father like son.

show me where I have half the facts if you would?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

oh by the way you keep bringing Bush into this? I was pointing at the fact that all of the current terrorist problems are over a decade in the making with two faulty administrations, the only casualty of both are innocent civilians world wide, and have only mulipled in multitude thanks to both.

A very informative thread indeed!

Damn, this thread is much cooler than what I posted earlier.

NO.. you aren't saying anything.. you're pathetically comparing a small attack against a legitimate military target and the porportional response to that against the biggest loss of american civilian life in 50 years...
its apples and oranges moron. Even Gore would have gone into afghanistan after 9/11.. even a hippie like nader probably would have had to do something as well. You CAN'T lose 3000 innocent people and NOT do something about it. for fucks sake, even if they were peaceful pussies they've got the votes to think about, and voters want some kind of action, their own self interest would have seen them doing something and playing the hero.

If you honestly believe that you can compare the responses to two totally seperate attacks and be able to judge anything you are a 'tard.
If 9/11 didn't happen and the Cole was bombed under Bush's watch we wouldn't have invaded Iraq., 9/11 had to happen for that to allow the fear in the public to support such a drastic move, really 17 sailors dying doesn't make the public support losing another 700 fucking around in a totally unrelated country.

And they will find everything they claimed he had and soo much more. All just in time to prove to the world they were right and in time for the election.

I hear Mr. Bush is personally going to deactive a WMD and show the American people his greatness

Pain in the ass