This is the saddest statement I've read in quite some time...

[PaceAdvantage]

From an article about today's elections in Spain:

Many voters said they were furious with the government for backing the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida, which claimed responsibility for the bombings.

WTF is wrong with these people? It doesn't matter if the war in Iraq was right or wrong? The only thing that matters to these people is if their actions will make al-Qaida more or less ANGRY at them???

WTF, WTF, WTF?????!!!!!!?????

Don't they get it? How screwed up is the world when right and wrong doesn't matter anymore. The only thing that apparently matters is if criminals will target your house if you go after them...

Give me a FREAKIN BREAK! Thank God I live in America.

[BillW]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
From an article about today's elections in Spain:



WTF is wrong with these people? It doesn't matter if the war in Iraq was right or wrong? The only thing that matters to these people is if their actions will make al-Qaida more or less ANGRY at them???

WTF, WTF, WTF?????!!!!!!?????

Don't they get it? How screwed up is the world when right and wrong doesn't matter anymore. The only thing that apparently matters is if criminals will target your house if you go after them...

Give me a FREAKIN BREAK! Thank God I live in America.

It'll be interesting to see what message the ETA get out of this.

[Dave_K]

Your response is as illogical (and simple-minded) as you presume "these people" (the Spanish) to be. Contrary to what you think, it does matter to them (I know, I'm married to one of "these people") whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong -- your problem is that they disagree with you and believed it to be wrong. Your argument only works if they 1) believed the war was right, but 2) didn't want to get involved for fear of terrorist retaliatory attacks. Since #1 is not true your argument doesn't work.

Jeez, talk about kicking someone when they're down....and not just someone, but supposedly our second most important ally after Britain.


Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
From an article about today's elections in Spain:



WTF is wrong with these people? It doesn't matter if the war in Iraq was right or wrong? The only thing that matters to these people is if their actions will make al-Qaida more or less ANGRY at them???

WTF, WTF, WTF?????!!!!!!?????

Don't they get it? How screwed up is the world when right and wrong doesn't matter anymore. The only thing that apparently matters is if criminals will target your house if you go after them...

Give me a FREAKIN BREAK! Thank God I live in America.

[JustRalph]

So now the terrorists Govern the country of Spain. That is what this means. Government by terror. The people of Spain deserve everything they get from this point on. I will be writing to my Congressmen and urging them to support a resolution against Spain and its actions post attack.

Contrast this with the response of the United States. We got tough on terrorists and the people of Spain lay down like whipped dogs. This is the true difference between old Europe and the United States. Don't ever forget that we dominate the world, because of these differences. Nothing has changed since War World II. I join PA and am thankful that I live in the U.S.

[Dave_K]

You completely missed the argument (by just reiterating the illogic of PA).

Originally posted by JustRalph
So now the terrorists Govern the country of Spain. That is what this means. Government by terror. The people of Spain deserve everything they get from this point on. I will be writing to my Congressmen and urging them to support a resolution against Spain and its actions post attack.

Contrast this with the response of the United States. We got tough on terrorists and the people of Spain lay down like whipped dogs. This is the true difference between old Europe and the United States. Don't ever forget that we dominate the world, because of these differences. Nothing has changed since War World II. I join PA and am thankful that I live in the U.S.

[Tom]

I agree with PA and JR. You vcan't allow the terrorists to win.
Hey, it's their country, thier election.
Their problem.
Same to England if they dump Blair.

[Larry Hamilton]

Dave, what it appears to me is that you are twisting the earlier statements to make it fit your desires.


Many voters said they were furious with the government for backing the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida, which claimed responsibility for the bombings.




No matter how you twist that, it says they were heros when there was no cost, after a cost was extracted by the bad guys, they showed yellow...

[Dave_K]

And what exactly are my "desires"?

I'm just amazed that 3 days after a terrorist attack on one of our staunchest allies, people are heaping insults on Spain, calling them stupid and weak-willed, etc. With friends like you guys, who needs terrorists, I mean, enemies.

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
Dave, what it appears to me is that you are twisting the earlier statements to make it fit your desires.


Many voters said they were furious with the government for backing the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida, which claimed responsibility for the bombings.




No matter how you twist that, it says they were heros when there was no cost, after a cost was extracted by the bad guys, they showed yellow...

[Secretariat]

Well said Dave. The opinion of the rest of the world doesn't matter to many on this site, only the opinion of the Bush administration.

I think you made your case succinctly.

[Larry Hamilton]

I didnt call them stupid or weak willed, I called them cowards and based on the facts as stated in the front of this thread, I stand by that.


As to your desires, I dont know what they are.

[cryptic1]

Its probably true that the majority of Spaniards believe that
they would not be the target of terrorists but for their countries
support for the war in Iraq. However appealing this believe is,
its naive and plainly wrong. With or without the war in Iraq
Islamist terrorist had made it clear that they were out to under-
mine the west in general not just the U.S. In fact many of Bin
Ladin's tapes spoke of the wrongs in the Andulusian area that
were to be rectified. This kneejerk reaction of the Spanish
electorate underlines how weak the stomachs are in western
Europe for dealing with the realilty of terrorism. Western
Europeans delude themselves if they think they would be immune
to terrorism but for supporting the U.S.
Likewise, those Americans who say the rest of the world can't
be wrong it must be us, are dangerously naive. World opinion is
and should be meaningless to a sovereign nation protecting its
interests. Why should the U.S. concern itself with the opinions of
other nations who are not as altruistic as the left would have you
believe. Take France for example. Their opposition to the Iraq
war had more to do with their goal of leading a united EU than
any ideological or moral stance. Their machiavellian approach to
politics determined their stance not moral principles. Likewise,
Russia, is in the process of redefininig itself as a major power and
chose to oppose the war as a way of distancing itself from the
U.S. Who else's opinion should we concern ourself with, certainly
not the Muslim block of nations with its emnity towards the U.S.
for a variety of real and imagined slights. The opposition to the
war in Iraq came either from countries acting out of their own
political self-interest or for other long term biases.
Frankly I'm not American, but as a citizen of this planet I am
concerned that many countries seem to want to relive past
mistakes. Appeasement, isolationism or blind neglect will not
stop the barbarians. We in the west made the same mistake
twice in the last century, assuming they are like us and live by
the same moral codes as we do. These terrorists don't share our
believes nor our morality. This will be a long fight made more
difficult by those who choose to believe that the U.S. is somehow
at fault.

A thoroughly disgusted
cryptic1

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well said Dave. The opinion of the rest of the world doesn't matter to many on this site, only the opinion of the Bush administration.

I think you made your case succinctly.

I could give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks.
When they come up to the high standards we have set in this country, I'll pay attention to what they think.

[Dave_K]

Larry, the problem is that the things stated at the front of this thread are not facts. PA said that it didn't matter to Spaniards whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong. This is simply not true -- the overwhelming majority of the Spanish people were against the war from the outset.

In supporting the Iraq war, Aznar knowingly acted against 85-90% of the populace, and the result of today's election was largely a function of that.

Furthermore, to say that the outcome of today's election was a result of cowardice displays a very limited understanding of the events that lead to today's outcome.

First off, Aznar's party (PP) only showed a 3-5% edge in polls on the day before the attack. Then, immediately after the attack, PP declared that ETA was, without a doubt, responsible for the attack. Over the next 2 days, accumulating evidence pointed at Islamic extremists. During this time, PP continued to maintain that ETA was still the number one suspect. This was interpreted by many Spaniards as an attempt to exploit the attack for political gain, since one of the main planks in PP's platform was taking a hardline stance against ETA. Had PP not acted this way, there's a good chance they would have won today.

PS, it was Tom who called Spaniards stupid and weak-willed (on the other thread). As to my "desires", you're the one who brought them up, so I assumed you knew what they were.

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
I didnt call them stupid or weak willed, I called them cowards and based on the facts as stated in the front of this thread, I stand by that.


As to your desires, I dont know what they are.

[Secretariat]

I think the Spanish people reacted in their vote in the same way the polls have shown displeasure toward Blair's Iraq policy in England. Mistrust. It's not just Spain.

Spainards were told they were engaging in Iraq to stop WMD's, not to promote some democracy like has been fostered in this country. Spain is not interested in promoting democracy around the world. When the WMD's did not materialize as guaranted by people like Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Rice skepticism abounded in Spain (and Britain). The people in Spain were never comfortable with the decision by Aznar to go into Iraq and Kay's report demonstrated that their fears may have been well founded.

Another piece which was never really covered much in the press over here was the dismissal of the actions aginst Katherine Gunn, the Blair whistle blower in England. The government filed charges against her and then withdrew those charges after the government refused to reveal information about Iraq which would have been damaging. The people in Spain are more aware of this than we are in the US. People don't want to feel duped by thier government and many obviously feel they'd been misled. Spain doesn't see the link between Bin Laden and Hussein's Iraq. They see it as two different issues. And they somehow feel that Spain's strong association with the US makes them a terrorist target which in fact has come to fruition.

The new Socialist leader has already promised to withdraw all Spanish troops from Iraq as his first act. About 1300. That means 1300 Americans will be taking thier place.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Dave_K
Larry, the problem is that the things stated at the front of this thread are not facts. PA said that it didn't matter to Spaniards whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong.


Not a fact? How else am I supposed to interpret the quote in my initial post in this thread? The quote did NOT say this:

"Many voters said they were furious with the government for backing the U.S.-led war in Iraq BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE WAR WAS UNJUST."


What the quote said was that they were furious with the gov't for backing the U.S.-led war and making Spain a TARGET.

So, which is it? Do the majority of Spaniards think the war was unjust? Did they approve of the actions of Hussein through the years? Did they approve of the way Hussein thumbed his nose at their beloved UN?

Obviously, the people of Spain ARE basing their decisions, IN PART, on whether or not they are going to anger big bad al-Qaida. This is a sad state of affairs.

It's actually quite disgusting that any country would bow down to terrorists like this. If it's true that al-Qaida actually was responsible for this bombing, and this bombing affected the outcome of the election, I probably won't be posting for a while, since I'll be sick to my stomach.

So lets assume al-Qaida was responsible for blowing up that train. So now what? What do the people of Spain do? They vote out their government, blame them for backing the US war on terror, and blame the US as well.

Makes a ton of sense. How about blaming the sick scumbags who actually walked into the train with knapsacks full of explosives???!!!! Or are the people of Spain saying these terrorists are justified in their actions??? In some way, perhaps the people of Spain said EXACTLY THIS when they cast their vote and chose to change directions!

Yes, now I get it. Terrorists are now justifed, and the US is not. Makes a lot of sense to me now. Black=White Light=Dark

[schweitz]

Some points:

1. Terrorism from radical Muslims has been going on in Europe for years before the invasion of Iraq.

2. Any people or Government that bows to terrorism deserves what they get.

3. I am always amazed when liberals are so wrought up about whether some country is going to like us anymore. As someone who has spent a great deal of time overseas in many countries I find that there is a great deal of jealousy towards th US in many places. Trust me--other countries do not have our best interests in mind---most would like to see
us taken down a notch or two. It's human nature---they are always going to find fault with the US and we
can't waste time or make policies based on whether someone is going to like us; especially if that policy is for the protection of our own country.

[Dave_K]

You're out of your element, Donnie.

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Not a fact? How else am I supposed to interpret the quote in my initial post in this thread? The quote did NOT say this:

"Many voters said they were furious with the government for backing the U.S.-led war in Iraq BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE WAR WAS UNJUST."


What the quote said was that they were furious with the gov't for backing the U.S.-led war and making Spain a TARGET.

So, which is it? Do the majority of Spaniards think the war was unjust? Did they approve of the actions of Hussein through the years? Did they approve of the way Hussein thumbed his nose at their beloved UN?

Obviously, the people of Spain ARE basing their decisions, IN PART, on whether or not they are going to anger big bad al-Qaida. This is a sad state of affairs.

It's actually quite disgusting that any country would bow down to terrorists like this. If it's true that al-Qaida actually was responsible for this bombing, and this bombing affected the outcome of the election, I probably won't be posting for a while, since I'll be sick to my stomach.

So lets assume al-Qaida was responsible for blowing up that train. So now what? What do the people of Spain do? They vote out their government, blame them for backing the US war on terror, and blame the US as well.

Makes a ton of sense. How about blaming the sick scumbags who actually walked into the train with knapsacks full of explosives???!!!! Or are the people of Spain saying these terrorists are justified in their actions??? In some way, perhaps the people of Spain said EXACTLY THIS when they cast their vote and chose to change directions!

Yes, now I get it. Terrorists are now justifed, and the US is not. Makes a lot of sense to me now. Black=White Light=Dark

[Amazin]

I think the protestors in Spain are mad because this was/is Bush's war, not theirs and they got dragged /pressed into it when Bush courted various governments promising economic favors in return for support in the Iraq war.. Though the majority of the Spanish people were against the war,there was no vote and it was a political move that the Spanish people felt was unwise and unjust in the first place. This has nothing to do with soft bellies. It has to do with 2 governments putting a people at in an uneccessarily dangerous position for their own benefit.. And the people of Spain have a right to be mad at their government for allowing that to happen. The Spanish govenment should protect it's people ,not put them in harm's way for their own profit.

[JustRalph]

they might as well had voted for Bin Laden as their Supreme Commander!

[dav4463]

Just another victory for Al-Qaida...........seems like no one wants to take a stand against them, except President Bush, and he gets criticized by everyone for fighting back. The whole world has turned into a bunch of sissies who are afraid to stand up to the "bully". Have we forgotten the feelings we had after 9/11 ? It seems that way to me. Now all we do is criticize the president and bow down to the terrorists.

[Lefty]

You can't appease terrorists and if that's what the voters in Spain were trying to do they're in for a rude awakening.
Same goes here; we better keep our President in office because Kerry won't do a thing without the UN and, sadly, it's a corrupt organization.

[kenwoodallpromos]

In the 80's I saw Spainiards all partying at Rota, Alacante, Ibiza. We are lucky they send some troops to help. But- anyone who sees violence that close up and does not get mad there is something wrong. Even the Jews learned not to just sit there and be victims! Terrorism is just like the old sea piracy, in that it takes world cooperation so there is no where to hide or even rest!

[ljb]

I'm in sort of a rush here so I'll just say to PA and his supporters on this thread. Kinda hurts when the truth bites you in the arse doesn't it?

[andicap]

The people of Spain are anything but cowards. They suffer through more terrorism every month than Americans see in a lifetime. The ETA (Basque separtists) are constantly attacking the Spanish people with bombs, etc., and of course the people and the government will never give in.

So to say the Spanish give in to terrorism is to read history and current events selectively, to fit your opinion.

Spaniards WERE most certainly against their country entering the war. But of course that does not mean they support Hussein. There are many brutal dictators out there I would love to dump, but we are not, are we? Did we go into Ruwands in the '90s? North Korea when Kim was starving MILLIONS of his people to death? Etc. etc.
No, the Bush Admin. did not go into Iraq to free its people -- otherwise, our army would be in about 30 countries now.
The Europeans understood this.
The Spanish center-right government supported the war and paid for it with being voted out -- just as the Bush Administration might find themselves in November.

Now, I'm not a naive idiot either. I know the government was ahead until the bombing and that caused a lot of people to back
the Socialists. You could say they succumbed to terrorism blackmail -- OR you could say they backed the government AGAINST THEIR BETTER JUDGEMENT and the terrorist bombs were the final straw. They were not happy with the gov't, but were patriotically supporting it -- until their government's ill-advised sojourn into Iraq exploded so to speak in their faces.

A government that backs a policy that turns out to be wrong must pay for that decision at the polls. No WMDs, no reason to get rid of Sadaam. Or are we going into North Korea -- which really DOES have nukes -- tomorrow?

[ljb]

andicap,
It is so refreshing to see a normal, logical, sensible note amongst all this anquish and gnashing of teeth.
Thanks :)

[Lefty]

lbj, you should no about the truth ass biting thingy as it happens to you constantly.
Why does N. korea have nukes?
Clinton adm of course.
Clinton also said Saddam had wmd's. Kerry said it too. Liberals have such selective memories.
Kerry says Bush not funding homeland security adequately. Yet Ketty voted against homeland security 6 times! He also said the terrorist threat exaggerated.
This guy's unbelievable. But so are most libs.

[Tom]

Originally posted by andicap
......A government that backs a policy that turns out to be wrong must pay for that decision at the polls. No WMDs, no reason to get rid of Sadaam. Or are we going into North Korea -- which really DOES have nukes -- tomorrow?

Andy,
Pay to the extent they would elect socialists?
And the first thing they are going to do is pull they troops out of Iraq. How's that for honoring committment? Gets a little hot in the kitchen and off they go, running home.
We don't need allies like that. Bush has shown more class than I would have. Spain can stand alone from now on as far as I am concerned. They have already dealt the war on terror a serious blow by backing down to the threat. This will only embolden the muslim world.
these terrorists are not a band of thugs and crackpots. They are a world wide, well backed, well organized nation without borders that is threatening the existence of the free world. It is as if nazi germany were back and rolling over Europe agains, only when we go to bomb them, we can't find them.
There is no way the terroists are operating without the help and safe harbor of many nations. My belief is that Sorry-Arabia is the foremost. But whoever, just look at the haul we got out of Lybia!
Scarry assortment ready to be assembled. How many other groups have this much or more.
We are engaged in the most important war in the history of the world and very few people are willing to recognize it. We are in a holy war and we will lose it if we keep backing down.

[Larry Hamilton]

The more tap dancing I read, the more I am convinced, this was an act of cowardice on a country-wide scale. I have yet to hear/read the explanation why it isn't. But, like someone said or alluded to, they are now socialist and cowards, so I hope they get what they deserve. Doesnt matter to me..eat sh*t and die for all I care--no hablo...

Now it occurs to me, there is not ONE people since the beginning of time that had a successful socialist government nor is there one built on the policy of appeasement and yet the socialist/libs won't go away. Go figure.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
The more tap dancing I read, the more I am convinced, this was an act of cowardice on a country-wide scale.

PSOE beat PP by a margin of 42% to 37%, which correponded to a difference of about a million votes. The day before the election, polls showed PP ahead of PSOE by 3-5%. Thus, the after the attacks, PSOE picked up somewhere in the neighborhood of a million votes out of about 25 million cast.

Among the people who abandoned PP, a significant proportion likely did so only because of the perception that PP was exploiting the attacks for political gain (i.e., by continuing to blame ETA despite mounting evidence pointing to Al Qaeda).

To say that this was "an act of cowardice on a country-wide scale" is simply ignoring the facts.

[JustRalph]

Andy.......they have been trying to appease the ETA for years. and they still get attacked on a regular basis. They should have wiped them out years ago. They just don't get it......and neither do you.......or anybody who thinks this election being thrown by a few bombs is the right reaction. They blew it.........the whole damn country.

[Tom]

Spain has been fighting terrorists (ETA) for 35 years. Obvioulsy, they are not very good at it.
I think our idea of pre-emptive strikes might be bit more effective than what they have been doing.
If they want to go socialist, let them. They will still be fighting terroists 35 years from now.

[freeneasy]

Originally posted by dav4463
Just another victory for Al-Qaida...........seems like no one wants to take a stand against them, except President Bush, and he gets criticized by everyone for fighting back. The whole world has turned into a bunch of sissies who are afraid to stand up to the "bully". Have we forgotten the feelings we had after 9/11 ? It seems that way to me. Now all we do is criticize the president and bow down to the terrorists.

to these countries that take no stand against terrorism, to them it doesnt matter that the world is fullof these murders, just as long as they leave us alone and dont kill any of our citizens. thats just the "cowards declaration of independence" and to spain and any other countries like them i say
"what? you didnt think that your showing of physical support for the u.s. involvement against iraq wasnt going to cost you in the way that only an extreme terrorist attack by the al-qaida would more then most definently cost you did ya?
you didnt actully think that a-q would most certainly 'not' retaliate against anyone that supported the us and you didnt seriously think that the a-q would just go ahead and lay down and give you a free pass without incurring the murderous form islamic justice did ya?
yeah ok spain we know who you are now. just a bunch of walkie-talkie chicken littles traitors. your walk and talk is full of crock. your no friend of this country and your no friend of mine. your desire to live as a weak minded people is your own gift to your own selfs and to me your just be a bunch of bedwetting crybabies. sorry for your loses.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nobody gets it. Continue to live in your fantasy world of "leave them alone, and they'll leave you alone"

Iraq was never about WMD (despite this administrations mistaken belief that they could make it about WMD). It was about making an example. It was about changing the opinions of those who think the US will run away from a battle. It was about changing the opinion of many in the "terrorist world" that the US was weak and would not fight back because the American people couldn't stand casualties (the terrorists all like to harken back to Vietnam).

I remember back during the first gulf war, when I was taking a college course on the Vietnam War. A Vietnam Vet came to talk to us, and ended up going on a long rant about how Iraq is going to be my generations Vietnam. A long, drawn out battle that will get mired down, and we will lose so many soldiers.

Well, the war started shortly after this guy spoke, and the war took slightly longer than the Vet's lecture....

Point is, people needed a reality check on the strength and tenacity of the US military, and they got one in Iraq.

If Spain really thinks that this is all just "America's problem", so be it. If America thinks that GWB is an awful president (which he certainly is not), then so be it. Vote him out.

I will leave Mr. Dave_K a parting question, since he was so nice to call me DONNIE for whatever reason, and he seems to be so familiar with Spain at the moment:

What are Spain's plans to help fight the global war on terrorism? Or do they not see it as a problem anymore?

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
What are Spain's plans to help fight the global war on terrorism? Or do they not see it as a problem anymore?

In your cartoonish view of the world, opposing Bush = supporting terrorists. Did it ever occur to you that it's possible to simultaneously oppose Bush and fight terrorism? Apparently not. This would be inconsistent with the Party slogans you're devoted to.

Ironically, even the White House doesn't hold the simplistic either/or mindset you do:

From today's Times:

"In Washington, the White House said that President Bush congratulated Mr. Zapatero and that the two leaders had pledged to work together on fighting terrorism.

'The two leaders said they both looked forward to working together, particularly on our shared commitment to fighting terrorism,' said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan."

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Nobody gets it. Continue to live in your fantasy world of "leave them alone, and they'll leave you alone"

Iraq was never about WMD (despite this administrations mistaken belief that they could make it about WMD). It was about making an example. It was about changing the opinions of those who think the US will run away from a battle. It was about changing the opinion of many in the "terrorist world" that the US was weak and would not fight back because the American people couldn't stand casualties (the terrorists all like to harken back to Vietnam).

I remember back during the first gulf war, when I was taking a college course on the Vietnam War. A Vietnam Vet came to talk to us, and ended up going on a long rant about how Iraq is going to be my generations Vietnam. A long, drawn out battle that will get mired down, and we will lose so many soldiers.

Well, the war started shortly after this guy spoke, and the war took slightly longer than the Vet's lecture....

Point is, people needed a reality check on the strength and tenacity of the US military, and they got one in Iraq.

If Spain really thinks that this is all just "America's problem", so be it. If America thinks that GWB is an awful president (which he certainly is not), then so be it. Vote him out.

I will leave Mr. Dave_K a parting question, since he was so nice to call me DONNIE for whatever reason, and he seems to be so familiar with Spain at the moment:

What are Spain's plans to help fight the global war on terrorism? Or do they not see it as a problem anymore?

Dave K.

You are spot on with this comment. "In your cartoonish view of the world, opposing Bush = supporting terrorists. Did it ever occur to you that it's possible to simultaneously oppose Bush and fight terrorism?"

ANY President of any party after an assault on WTC to the magnitude as this one would have invaded Afghanistan and sought out those responsible. Gore advocated it and so did a bi-partisan Congress. This lunacy of setting an example in Iraq is unprecedented. Iraq had shown no links to the terrorist cells responsible for 911, no verifiable WMD's, and was actually antagonistic toward Bin Laden. Additionally the example argument doesn't fly because we've ignored Noth Korea a nation with WMD's, made an ally of (at least the current President of Pakistan) which has WMD's obtained illegally from China, an oppressive human rights violation nation in which we have a favored nations trading policy, and Cuba which sits on our doorstep and remains a communist nation in our hemisphere. Putting American lives at risk for "an example" is ludicrous because the "example" we've displayed to the world is that we will "pre-emptively" strike anywhere in the world without justification or even provocation so watch out because you may be next. This is exactly the type of big bully attitide that creates terrorists. Small factions of resentment determined to get even.

Pa, your lecture from the vietnam vet should have been heeded (as one who fought over there myself). We've lost 564 lives, we have familes protesting over the Iraq war (not the Afghanistan war mind you). The war in Iraq is now either a war of "example" as you propose, OR a war based on ailed intelligence regarding WMD's, OR a humanitarian war to free and democratize the Iraqi people. The first argument is absolutly ridiculous and even the President would never assert that. The second argument will never be admitted to as the principal argument for war. The third argument is being fostered, and yet we avoid humanitarian wars on a continual basis such as North Korea, Cuba, and many African nations, so why was this one with Iraq necessary? Simple, it's about oil my friend. And it always has been. Heck, they were promoting an Iraqi action prior to 911 so don't give me this "example" hogwash.

[Lefty]

DaveK, it will be hard to fight the war on terrorism without President Bush. Just look at his opponent's voting record. Kerry won't fight anything without the UN's approval and that organization is corrupt. Without Bush, the war on terror will suffer serious setbacks. I don't believe it's PA who has a cartoonish view of the world but there are posters here who do.

[ljb]

Originally posted by PA
"Iraq was never about WMD (despite this administrations mistaken belief that they could make it about WMD). It was about making an example. It was about changing the opinions of those who think the US will run away from a battle. It was about changing the opinion of many in the "terrorist world" that the US was weak and would not fight back because the American people couldn't stand casualties (the terrorists all like to harken back to Vietnam)."
PA, You would never make it in the no spin zone. Do you think if the administration had gone to the world with "we want to make an example so we are going to invade Iraq" they would have had any support at all? No, so they lied to the world and got many unsuspecting Americans waving the flag of false patriotism.
The Spanish public was not for the invasion and have responded to their leaders disregard for their wishes by throwing him out. Much like knowledgeable Americans will throw Bush and his cronies out next November.

[schweitz]

Attention all Liberals:

All prominent Democratic leaders believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war and are on record of saying so. Get over it!

If you can't see the positives that are the result of invading Iraq then you don't want to for your own agenda.

[JimL]

schweitz, Please list the positives. JimL

[schweitz]

Positives in no particular order:

1. end of mass murder and atrocities in Iraq
2. end of funding for suicide bombers
3. democracy coming to the middle east
4. proving to terrorists that the US is not as impotent as they think
5. Libya's giving up nukes.
6. finding out the real reasons for France and Germany's reluctance to invade Iraq

[sq764]

Does anyone opposing the war realize that we are fighting this war for many,many countries, not just America? To me, that is what clears my mind of any thoughts of egotism and world dominance as causes to go to war, from the American standpoint.

It blows my mind how some people cannot see that something had to be done. Sure, maybe the reasons the American public were given for us going to war were not truthful, but that really isn't the point.

If the government lied to us to get our support for the war, that doesn't make me disagree with the decision that was made. Sometimes I believe they have to lie for the good of the cause. I mean what would have been the reaction if they said "We are going to go into Iraq, we will win this, we will reconstruct a government, BUT.. There will be 500-1000 dead US soldiers and civilians in the process.

In light of that thought, I think they made the right decision.

[Lefty]

Any lies strictly by the the Democrats. Clinton said they had wmd's. Kennedy said they had wmd's. Kerry said they had wmd's. Now all of a sudden Bush is branded the liar? The Dems rhetoric and selective memories sicken me.

[delayjf]

There are many brutal dictators out there I would love to dump, but we are not, are we? Did we go into Ruwands in the '90s? North Korea when Kim was starving MILLIONS of his people to death? Etc. etc.

So, do you favor invading N Korea

I would agree with you as far as Ruwanda is concerned, perhaps we should ask Clinton why he didn't send in any troops. Or better yet, where was the almightly UN ? For that matter, where was the UN while the khmer Rouge was killing a million of its own people. North Korea is a lot more complex, they are a nuclear power. Do you really want to risk a nuclear war over Korea? what do you think Japan would think about that. When you can, you fight the smart battles you can win.

As President, could you really sit in the Oval Office and do NOTHING. Would you be willing to take the chance that Iraq would not provide a WMD to some terrorist group for use in the US. Especially when A) he's used WMD before. B) The best intell in the world says he has them. Certainly Kerry is willing to take that chance, but it's always easier to do nothing and hope the big one doesn't hit on your watch (are you out there Billdo). 9/11 was the wake up call, as bad as it was, it could have been a lot worse. It still can get a lot worse. If we can fight them in Iraq, that's better than fighting them here.

And yes, there was an Al Qaida connection in Iraq, it's a known fact they had a training base in Iraq.



Do you think if the administration had gone to the world with "we want to make an example so we are going to invade Iraq" they would have had any support at all? No, so they lied to the world and got many unsuspecting Americans waving the flag of false patriotism.

On this issue alone, no. But once we stepped off, this was most definately a message we intended to send.

I suspect that some here would not have supported Pres Bush had we found an entire arsenal of WMD.

[Tom]

Originally posted by schweitz
Positives in no particular order:

1. end of mass murder and atrocities in Iraq
2. end of funding for suicide bombers
3. democracy coming to the middle east
4. proving to terrorists that the US is not as impotent as they think
5. Libya's giving up nukes.
6. finding out the real reasons for France and Germany's reluctance to invade Iraq

I guess those are pretty good examples. Nice post, "S".

Another Q? for the liberals who just love to post polls.
How about the poll of the Iraqi's on the news today?
Something like 67% think their lives are better now.
I'll search for details tonigt.
You want to stop terroism? The do what we have done in Afgahanistan adn Iraq and give people freedom , and then maybe that will create friends.
Isn't that what Amazin said to do? Change our foreign policy?

[JimL]

Where was the Al Quida, training base in Iraq? JimL

[Tom]

Originally posted by JimL
Where was the Al Quida, training base in Iraq? JimL

It was in Northern Iraq, I believe, and it was the base where they were training to manufacture poison gas that was eventually traced to Europe. We failed to take it out when we had the chance.
I will search for the article about it - don't remeber off hand.
This was on the news a week or so ago?
I posted this about it in here somewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4428430/

There is another, but I can't find it right now. Will keep looking.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Dave_K
In your cartoonish view of the world, opposing Bush = supporting terrorists. Did it ever occur to you that it's possible to simultaneously oppose Bush and fight terrorism? Apparently not. This would be inconsistent with the Party slogans you're devoted to.

I'm not devoted to any party. Since when does agreeing with how Bush has handled the war on terrorism = devotion to the entire platform of a party?

And you didn't answer my question. You are obviously a much more informed person when it comes to Spain than myself....what are their plans to fight the terrorism that is occuring in the world today?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Simple, it's about oil my friend. And it always has been. Heck, they were promoting an Iraqi action prior to 911 so don't give me this "example" hogwash.

Where's the proof? Do you have pictures of Exxon oil tankers docked in Iraq?

[schweitz]

If it was about oil I sure would like to see some sort of payoff at the pump. lol

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by JimL
Where was the Al Quida, training base in Iraq? JimL

Jim..... this is the link that sold me....early on.....it has been ignored by the left leaning media in the U.S. There are several other sources on this. I found this with a quick google search. There are also sat. photos of the location online somewhere.

Terrorist camp in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html)

[Derek2U]

in the year 2006 all of U will be declared insane. 1st it will take
2 years to read leftys political posts and by then whose gonna care?? bush will be doing kareyoake in a tx bar & laura's gonna
breast feed latino test- tube babies// tom de laY, our president.
is this possible? i dunno but wheres the science?? all this crap ...
am I the ONLy sign of reason left? i wanna introduce Bowie ...
why is it that Bowie soars? fashion + looks + talent + etc etc.
Its what i feel .. hehe i was called supercelius and i did look it up
but no way am i that vane .... i look out for everyones' good and
okay if thats my weakness so be that but dont just igNORE me
because of that ... okay ... like Consider The Lily okay???

[Tom]

Thanks Ralph. That's the one I was looking for.
Geting buried with snow tonight so I am out shoveling and just stopping to read post while my heart lows back down:eek:

BTW, see they got a bead on your sniper. Bet that will make folks around there sleep easier.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Hey Tom, if you were living in Ca you could hire some illegals to shovel the snow for you! They might even do it cheap because they have never seen it before!LOL!!

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Where's the proof? Do you have pictures of Exxon oil tankers docked in Iraq?

Don't have pictures, but Bush pretty much said it himself before the war.

http://www.sundayherald.com/print28285

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Jim..... this is the link that sold me....early on.....it has been ignored by the left leaning media in the U.S. There are several other sources on this. I found this with a quick google search. There are also sat. photos of the location online somewhere.

Terrorist camp in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html)

JR,

If you're going to quote The Guardian on Al-Quaida terrorist camps in Iraq, make sure you follow up what they printed at a later date debunking the claim.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,892045,00.html

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
Thanks Ralph. That's the one I was looking for.
Geting buried with snow tonight so I am out shoveling and just stopping to read post while my heart lows back down:eek:

BTW, see they got a bead on your sniper. Bet that will make folks around there sleep easier.

Tom

I got that snow last night......pretty decent 4 inches for us. It looks like more for you.

The sniper turns out to be a mentally deranged type who lives within about a mile of most of the shootings. Except for the one where my wife was on the freeway right behind the cars that were shot. That was his last shooting on Valentines Day. The press here let it be known that they had installed cameras on the outerbelt where he was shooting (near his home) so he branched out a little. If you see the footage on Fox where they show the Exit sign for "Pataskala 310" that is one mile from my house. My wife was behind the cars that were hit. She saw them pulling over but didn't know why they were stopping. I figure he is out of state somewhere by now. Although he has a history of confrontation. He apparently got popped for OMVI (http://www.fcmcclerk.com/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.o_case_sum?468462) and Speed a couple of times in the last year. He was involved in some domestic stuff around the house too. That is why they have his picture. I think some trooper in Indiana or NY state will end up shooting him unless he is holed up with a friend or relative close to Columbus.

Here is the link to his latest charge..........it is a little slow.

http://www.fcmcclerk.com/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.o_case_sum?2694573

[Secretariat]

btw..if those terrorist camps were in Northern Iraq (and the Guaridan article you quoted JR later debunked that myth), what would that have to do with Hussein? There was a no-fly zone over Northern Iraq, and movements in the North and South were being patrolled by allied planes for a decade over those zones.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
If it was about oil I sure would like to see some sort of payoff at the pump. lol

Just look at the increase in stock price for the big oil companies lately. Why would they pass it on to you?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
btw..if those terrorist camps were in Northern Iraq (and the Guaridan article you quoted JR later debunked that myth), what would that have to do with Hussein? There was a no-fly zone over Northern Iraq, and movements in the North and South were being patrolled by allied planes for a decade over those zones.

I suppose the training base that had a Aircraft Fuselage was there for the Iraqi Airlines Stewardess School too..........

[Lefty]

derek, bet u that they can read my many posts faster than they can decipher yours. I'm still working on the last half of u'r latest.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Does anyone opposing the war realize that we are fighting this war for many,many countries, not just America? T

THAT'S FINE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO ALLOW THOSE COUNTRIES TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION.

It blows my mind how some people cannot see that something had to be done. Sure, maybe the reasons the American public were given for us going to war were not truthful, but that really isn't the point.

I'M AFRAID THAT IS THE TRUTH. YOU CAN'T G CRITICIZING CONGRESS IF IN FACT THE REAL REASONS FOR GOING TO WAR WERE MISREPRESENTED. THIS IS NOT A DICATATOIRAL MONARCHY.

If the government lied to us to get our support for the war, that doesn't make me disagree with the decision that was made. Sometimes I believe they have to lie for the good of the cause. I mean what would have been the reaction if they said "We are going to go into Iraq, we will win this, we will reconstruct a government, BUT.. There will be 500-1000 dead US soldiers and civilians in the process.

EXACTLY, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE REACTION. THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE EITHER ACCEPTED IT OR REJECTED IT. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS IN A DEMOCRACY. THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT NOT BUSH OR ARE LEGISLATORS. WHEN THEY LIE TO US AS YOU SAY, THEY VIOLATE THE NATIONAL TRUST.

In light of that thought, I think they made the right decision.

SO YOUR CONCLUSION IS A POINT OF VIEW PERSONAL JUSTIFIABLE LYING TO THE PEOPLE IS THE RIGHT DECISION.

SAD.

[Lefty]

sec, on Bill O'Reilly tonight Madeleine Albright said she believed Saddam had WMD's. There ya go. But keep on spinning the story that Bush lied and the Dems are paragons of truth.
We're in, it's about over and that's it. The question is: do we keep fighting the terrorists or do we elect Kerry and suffer the GRAVE consequences? He does kinda look like an undertaker. Only it won't be so funny to see him let the corrupt UN seal our fate.

[sq764]

Hey Secretariat, how would "the people have accepted or rejected it?"

By not voting for Bush next out? Or how else?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
Positives in no particular order:

1. end of mass murder and atrocities in Iraq
2. end of funding for suicide bombers
3. democracy coming to the middle east
4. proving to terrorists that the US is not as impotent as they think
5. Libya's giving up nukes.
6. finding out the real reasons for France and Germany's reluctance to invade Iraq

1. The end of the Hussein regime is something we're all happy for. But most of those mass murders occurred after the Sunni's rose up shortly after we failed to intervene after encouraging an internal revolution. It was Hussein's retribution. And a horrific one, but it was almost a decade earlier. There was no mention of this prior to 911.

2. We don't know the ending of funding has occurred for suicide bombers. A few struck the other day in Israel and Madrid. The one thing I liked Bush said after 911 was we were going to track down the money trail of these suppliers of funds to the terrorists, but to this day, I see no real progress on that front. Since most were Saudis on those 911 planes why can't we get more from the Saudis on the money flow?

3. Let's hope so. But will a US appointed council drafting a draft Constituion for the Iraqi people succeed. Sistani has already said that after elections, the Iraqi people will form their own constitution without US interference. That will be the itneresting part.

4. Well, there seems to be a terrorist action almost every other day now so I'm not sure what we proved. Israel spends more on security than any nation in existence and yet it never stops. Asd long as there are desperate people we will have terrorism.

5. Yes, that is a good thing, but Iran seems more entrenched, as is North Korea and N. Korea has real nukes. Maybe its a push.

6. No great mystery in France and Germany. They relied on oil from Iraq and didn't want their oil path threatened. No one said their reasons were altruistic, but neither are ours. Face it guys. Oil matters. And a Lot!

[sq764]

Man, after reading Secretariat's post, it really makes me proud of this country. And consequently, it makes me think even more that people like this should get the hell out of this fine country. They do not deserve to live here.

They are probably also the same ones that got picked on in school, tried to 'talk it out', and proceeded to get the crap beat out of them on a daily basis, ala Al Sharpton.

[Secretariat]

lol...thanks SQ, I appreciate the well thought out and intelligent and well researched reply.

Thank God this is still a free speech America, and I welcome your presence here.

[sq764]

Just be happy you do live in America. They'd have gunned your ass down long ago in many foreign countries

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
1. The end of the Hussein regime is something we're all happy for. But most of those mass murders occurred after the Sunni's rose up shortly after we failed to intervene after encouraging an internal revolution. It was Hussein's retribution. And a horrific one, but it was almost a decade earlier. There was no mention of this prior to 911.

2. We don't know the ending of funding has occurred for suicide bombers. A few struck the other day in Israel and Madrid. The one thing I liked Bush said after 911 was we were going to track down the money trail of these suppliers of funds to the terrorists, but to this day, I see no real progress on that front. Since most were Saudis on those 911 planes why can't we get more from the Saudis on the money flow?

3. Let's hope so. But will a US appointed council drafting a draft Constituion for the Iraqi people succeed. Sistani has already said that after elections, the Iraqi people will form their own constitution without US interference. That will be the itneresting part.

4. Well, there seems to be a terrorist action almost every other day now so I'm not sure what we proved. Israel spends more on security than any nation in existence and yet it never stops. Asd long as there are desperate people we will have terrorism.

5. Yes, that is a good thing, but Iran seems more entrenched, as is North Korea and N. Korea has real nukes. Maybe its a push.

6. No great mystery in France and Germany. They relied on oil from Iraq and didn't want their oil path threatened. No one said their reasons were altruistic, but neither are ours. Face it guys. Oil matters. And a Lot!

1. You didn't address the ongoing atrocities>

2. The funding from Saddam has stopped.

4. Terrorist action against the US now has consequences. This was established by going after Bin Ladin and going into Iraq.

5. Not a push---one less worry.

6. France and Germany were both dealing with Iraq in goods banned by the UN.


But it does sound like we can agree that these are good things that came from the Invasion of Iraq.

[Tom]

So even when we get a shotload of WMD out of terrorists hand you libs are still not happy!
It's a start, it will continue.
In the meantime, how many people to you think could have been killed just by the small percentage of stuff they showed off yesterday?
Bush just keeps delivering the goods.
Meanwhile, in 30+ years, what has Kerry done of any substance?
Voted against a strong America, impersonated Lurch, flip flopped more than an Albanian gymnist, and made uip stories about foreign leaders supporting him.
Bush, a proven winner. Kerry, a tall guy. (Could be handy if Teddy ever drives another car off a bridge- maybe this time his girl friend won't die because of his extreme cowardice- Daddy long legs can wade out and pluck her out the water).

[Tom]

Ralph,
12 inches by 9 o'clock. Just plowed out the driveway and is full already. Starting to get breezy and drifting.
Looks like a desert out there.
Hope Al Qeda isn't hiding out in my bushes.
Damn this global warming anyway. :p

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Just be happy you do live in America. They'd have gunned your ass down long ago in many foreign countries

Yes, and perhaps yours as well...Sorry SQ, I think the Bill of Rights and the privilege of living in America is about a little bit more than just survival.

[JimL]

Ralph, thank you for the link. You are wrong about one thing that I want to bring to your attention Jamie Lee Curtis is not a baby. She is a baby and a half!!!!!!! JimL

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
1. You didn't address the ongoing atrocities>

2. The funding from Saddam has stopped.

4. Terrorist action against the US now has consequences. This was established by going after Bin Ladin and going into Iraq.

5. Not a push---one less worry.

6. France and Germany were both dealing with Iraq in goods banned by the UN.


But it does sound like we can agree that these are good things that came from the Invasion of Iraq.

1. Please list the massive ongoing atrocities in Iraq.

2. Please show me a link of the massive funding from Saddam in support of the 911 terrorists and terrorism in general.

4. It's been 2.5 years and we still don't have Bin Laden (or maybe we do who knows). Interesting we could have had him immediately after 911 when the Taliban was willing to give him up but we chose to invade Afghansitan. Bit I agree with Bush on that decision, in contrast to many liberals, because of the shelter given to Al Quada; however Iraq is a different story as there was no Al Quadia connection and it still has yet to be proven. Every claim has turned up to be false until after Hussein was toppled. Besides its fallacious to say we haven't gone after terrorists in the past. Look at my earlier posts. The people behind previous attempts are in prison. What is different in Bush's approach is to attack nations rather than just the actual culprits.

5. Yes, it is a good thing Hussein is out of power. I guess my question is at what cost to America? Well over a 100 billion dollars thus far. 564 American lives lost. Well, over a thousand wounded. No WMD's found. Our crediblity worldwide diminshed. Our deficits increased due to the massive military expenditure. And terror still abounds throught out the world, and Bin Laden and Al Quaida links still active. And now the White House and the CIA say Iraq was never an "imminent" threat by their own words. I just think the American public got sold a bill of goods for oil. There is no question it is a good thing Hussein is out of power, the question must be asked though...at what cost?

6. If that can be proven why has the US ambassador to the UN not brought the issue up to the UN, and demanded France and Germany address that issue to the UN? Bush appointed thie US UN ambasador.

Good things out of Iraq. Sure. If democracy can sustain itself in Iraq that's great. I think it will be interesting when America troops leave to see if it is sustainable. I think Hussein out of power is fantastic. I don't feel the overall world is safer from terrorism as a result, and it has to be shown it is. Even in this country we're on terror alert every few months. People are flying less out of fear. People fear traveling abroad. New marshals are now in the subways of London after Madrid. And the cost is helfty...I agree we need to fight terrorism, but we need to be a lot smarter doing that then spending billions of dollars around the world attempting to build democracies in Islamic nations.

Personally, I'd have preferred those 564 Americans were stil lalive. Those hundred billion plus dollars were reducing our deficits, that we had stuck to capturinf Bin Laden back in 2001 and dealt with Iraq through the UN since they were no "imminent" threat according to the White House and CIA. By now we could have had Bin Laden, strengthened Afghanistan, perhaps opened better diplomatic relations in Pakistan, and the UN could have exposed the paper tiger Saddam for what he was a frightened phony with no WMD's trying to hold onto power.

I don't object to us getting Hussein out of power. I disagree with the cost in money and lives, and the way we did it.

I've heard on this thread various reasons for going into Iraq: fight terrorism, WMD's, build democracy, avenge former atrocities of a brutal dictator, imminent threat to America, etc...I think the build democracy argument and the avenge former atrocites are the only two which still hold any merit, but both show an American inconsistency as we have avoided that worldwide in the past and nation building was put down by Bush in his 2000 run. Bush said in his own words that Iraq oil may require military intervention prior to 911, and he finally got what he wanted. I think it was a hefty price to pay for America.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Hey Secretariat, how would "the people have accepted or rejected it?"

By not voting for Bush next out? Or how else?

Well, government accountability goes beyond the President. When you put people's sons and daughters in the line of fire, those familes want to know they've been told the truth. When we spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars those citizens want to know what their money has been spent on. When its a lie people get a little touchy.

If government officials lie they should be booted out of office. It is a violation of their oath of office. So if you beleive politicans should lie, then do nothing. Otherwise, write your Congressmen, and if that gets nowhere, possibly march peacefully, protest, organize with others, make your voice heard, and lastly, yes vote liars out of office.

[sq764]

Secretariat, you just don't get it, do you?

Clinton lied about almost everything that came out of his mouth, yet the public loved him... You know why? They were making big money during his presidency.

Under your theory, the country should have been outraged and calling for his head. But were they? Hell no. They didn't have time in between raking in their stock profits.

And one other thing... Show me a president that did not lie during his tenure.. Just one please.

[Lefty]

Well if you guys with selective memories will go back and listen to GW's State Of Union Speech before we invaded Iraq he went out of his way to say Iraq NOT an imminent threat and we must act BEFORE they become an imminent thread, so tired of lying DEM b.s. Also, Saddam was shooting at our planes and busted 17 resolutions. We did the right thing and it's done.
Sure don't remember the Taliban wanting to give him up AFTER 9-11(Osama)but Clinton had 3 chances to have him on the old silver platter BEFORE 9-11 so stop already.
We have the right man for the job.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Secretariat, you just don't get it, do you?

Clinton lied about almost everything that came out of his mouth, yet the public loved him... You know why? They were making big money during his presidency.

Under your theory, the country should have been outraged and calling for his head. But were they? Hell no. They didn't have time in between raking in their stock profits.

And one other thing... Show me a president that did not lie during his tenure.. Just one please.

Lefty was outraged about Clinton, and beleive me I am no fan of his either.

As to Prez's who have never lied. Reagan. Just ask Lefty.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Well if you guys with selective memories will go back and listen to GW's State Of Union Speech before we invaded Iraq he went out of his way to say Iraq NOT an imminent threat and we must act BEFORE they become an imminent thread, so tired of lying DEM b.s. Also, Saddam was shooting at our planes and busted 17 resolutions. We did the right thing and it's done.
Sure don't remember the Taliban wanting to give him up AFTER 9-11(Osama)but Clinton had 3 chances to have him on the old silver platter BEFORE 9-11 so stop already.
We have the right man for the job.

Here’s latest on Spain’s leader now supporting Kerry publicly:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_re_eu/spain_bombings_2

Lefty, here’s the article on Taliban handing over Bin Laden.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_423546.html

And Here’s Bush pre-911 admission of entering Iraq for oil.

http://www.sundayherald.com/print28285

[sq764]

So Secretariat, if we (the public) voted Clinton into office twice, knowing he was a full-fledged liar, what is the rationale behind this?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
So Secretariat, if we (the public) voted Clinton into office twice, knowing he was a full-fledged liar, what is the rationale behind this?

First of all voting is an individual action (except in Florida). I did not vote for Clinton in 96, but voted for Dole. I've never been real fond of Clinton. However, his lies wee mostly regarding affiars and such nonsense. I 'm more concerned when billions of taxpayer dollars are affected and lives are on the line.

Personally, I would have been happy had Clinton been impeached and thorwn out of office because Gore would then have been President who I felt was a better man.

Rationale? You'd have to ask the voters who voted for Clinton. I did not.

I do want to deal with your question on lies though. I do agee some politicians embellish the truth, but there are degrees as to the affect of these lies to our nation's funds and servicemen. For example, saying you're skipping out on Hilary tonight is a little different than Nixon's whoppers.

[sq764]

Gore was a blubbering idiot. And thank the Lord he did not ever get into office.

I do like how you changed your tune from lies to only lies that involve taxpayer money (although if our president is running around with interns while he is supposed to be working, it kind of wastes your tax money, but that's beside the point)

I mean the guy debated the meaning of the word "is".. the word "is"!!!

BUT.. He make a lot of people a lot of money, and that is why lies have to be put into perspective.

[Jaguar]

PA is absolutely right.

All The Best,

Jaguar

[sq764]

"Terrorism is combatted by the state of the law".....

WHAT!?!?!?

Translation = "I have no friggin idea how you can fight terrorism without war, but maybe this will confuse all of you drones until I can come up with something"

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
However, his lies wee mostly regarding affiars and such nonsense. I 'm more concerned when billions of taxpayer dollars are affected and lives are on the line.

You assume that we know about all of his lies......?

[ljb]

Gentlemen,
They are ALL liars! The question you must ask is: Which lies do us the most damage? And/or which lies will be most benificial. We should all take a moment out of our bickering to say a prayer of thanks for the many men and women in uniform who have made sacrifices so that we may continue to debate here.
Also include the families of these brave men and women and those that came back wounded or crippled. And pray for a leader with enough wisdom to not lead us into another uneeded war.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Which is it? An uneeded war or are our guys in Iraq fighting for our freedom? Or are you playing the vet card like Kerry? I put in 6 years in the navy icluding anchored out in Beirut harbor, dancing around the line of death off Iran, up through the Suez Canal to bomb Libya (Sorry about that one- Libya did not explode the plane INSIDE USA airspace so that was an uneeded war!); and helping the coast guard with drug interdiction (OUTSIDE USA territory) between Gitmo and Florida; and chasing a disabled russian sub being towed by a trawler (Sorry- again open med waters, not USA waters). Also supplied Nimitz in support of Grenada conflict- (I know, NOT USA territory!) was in 1982-1988 under Reagan, and no attacks on USA territory when I was in. / I know all about respecting the military even if I do not agree with policy- I protested the war in Vietnam, but I never accused our guys of ewar crimes, never hung anyone in effigy, never burned or hung the flag upside down, never called our president Nixon a crook! or a liar. I never through mine or anyone else's medals away, never wore any part of my uniform exept in service, stayed in 2 extra years instead of getting out early. I won a 6th fleet commendation for following procedures when giving out supplies. Oh yes, and I never claimed any European leaders wanted the current president (Nixon) out of office!!

[ljb]

Ken said Which is it? An uneeded war or are our guys in Iraq fighting for our freedom?
It is an uneeded war. Our guys are in Iraq because the current administration thought it was a hill they could climb. After 9/11 they went to afghanistan to route out the rouges and kill Osama. They were half succesful there and decided not to push it any further because of Russias experiences there. They then used the patriotic ferver in USA to trump up some bs about Iraq. Thinking this would be a slam dunk. They were wrong, and now every day young Americans are dying while Bush and company go on million dollar fund raising tours. And the hatred for the US grows daily. For shame, for shame.

[Secretariat]

I try only to post links Pa, but this says it all about Bush's pr-911 intentions towards Iraq's oil in that first paragraph. Please read his own quote pre-911 "military intervention is necessary." This is pre-911.

Sunday Herald - 06 October 2002
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
By Neil Mackay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on 'energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.

'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'

Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.

The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute.

President Bush also has strong connections to the US oil industry and once owned the oil company Spectrum 7.

The Baker report highlights massive shortages in world oil supplies which now leave the US facing 'unprecedented energy price volatility' and has led to recurring electricity black-outs in areas such as California.

The report refers to the impact of fuel shortages on voters. It recommends a 'new and viable US energy policy central to America's domestic economy and to [the] nation's security and foreign policy'.

Iraq, the report says, 'turns its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so', adding that there is a 'possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time' in order to damage prices.

The report also says that Cheney should integrate energy and security to stop 'manipulations of markets by any state', and suggests that Cheney's Energy Policy Group includes 'representation from the Department of Defence'.

'Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game,' the report says, 'US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position.'

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
....... and lastly, yes vote liars out of office.

But the only way to do that is to vote other liars IN to office!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I try only to post links Pa, but this says it all about Bush's pr-911 intentions towards Iraq's oil in that first paragraph. Please read his own quote pre-911 "military intervention is necessary." This is pre-911.

Who publishes the Sunday Herald?

And if everything in that article is true, is it necessarily wrong or bad? If a certain country has the capability to do us great harm economically, isn't it the responsibility of our elected officials to consider this scenario and formulate appropriate remedies?

[Tom]

It's called being prepared. It is repsonsible behavior.
I bet we have a plan somewhere in case Canada ever attacks!

[PaceAdvantage]

Why is it that people can't debate politics without taking things so personally and turning most every thread into a hate-fest?

I make a statement that I think the people of Spain acted incorrectly with their knee-jerk voting...MY OPINION by the way....and I get called cartoonish, blind, dumb, stupid, or whatever else was inferred by various statements designed to put down my opinion. Other people are told that they should get out of the country or would be shot if they lived elsewhere....whatever....meaningless additions to the conversation if you ask me.

If you disagree with me or anyone else, FINE. Say so. Explain why. Don't take it personally.

I get e-mails telling me how I shouldn't be stating my opinion or starting such firestorm threads. They go on to tell me how I should remain neutral because I am the board moderator.

Trouble is, half the joy of doing this site is to be able to interact with everyone else and share my opinion! If I was unable to share my opinion when I felt like it, 50% the usefullness of this place would go out the window for me. (The other 50% is the ideas and info I get just from reading the horseracing posts, despite what Amazin thinks)

So, next time you're writing a reply to a post, whoever you are, take 30 seconds to read over what you just wrote, and try and take it down a notch.

Not everyone is meant to be a wiseass, or is cut out for that title, so I suggest that everyone just cool their jets a bit. Everyone is always trying to one-up the next guy and it just gets way too ponderous after a while...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Who publishes the Sunday Herald?

And if everything in that article is true, is it necessarily wrong or bad? If a certain country has the capability to do us great harm economically, isn't it the responsibility of our elected officials to consider this scenario and formulate appropriate remedies?

The Herald is a UK paper, one of our allies.

as to your second question, yes, but that isn’t what was presented to the American people OR Congress as our motivation for going into Iraq. Never in any of his public speeches after 911, nor to our elected officials nor to the UN did he use OIL as a reason. But let’s look at that quote again of Bush:

“President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.”

…a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil…Us ‘military intervention’ is necessary.

Note he didn’t say “may” be necessary, but “is” necessary. My point is this is pre-911, and Bush is talking about a military operation based upon OIL!.....

Bush said it pre-911. I don’t know how much clearer it can be when its in his own words.

He informed us of his military intent as “necessary”. This hogwash about WMD’s, stopping terroism, democracy, etc…weren’t mentioned in his quote as a reason for military intervention back then, but OIL was. Interesting in terms of his true priorities…

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
The Herald is a UK paper, one of our allies.

as to your second question, yes, but that isn’t what was presented to the American people OR Congress as our motivation for going into Iraq. Never in any of his public speeches after 911, nor to our elected officials nor to the UN did he use OIL as a reason. But let’s look at that quote again of Bush:

“President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.”

…a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil…Us ‘military intervention’ is necessary.

Note he didn’t say “may” be necessary, but “is” necessary. My point is this is pre-911, and Bush is talking about a military operation based upon OIL!.....

Bush said it pre-911. I don’t know how much clearer it can be when its in his own words.

He informed us of his military intent as “necessary”. This hogwash about WMD’s, stopping terroism, democracy, etc…weren’t mentioned in his quote as a reason for military intervention back then, but OIL was. Interesting in terms of his true priorities…


Nothing was said about a military operation based upon oil--it was postulated that if there was a need to invade Iraq ( something we all have been concerned about for a decade) Saddam's manipulation of Iraq's oil could be a problem if an invasion was necessary. I would like to think that as unstable a country as Iraq was we were planning ahead for any scenario.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
But let’s look at that quote again of Bush:

“President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.”

---
Bush said it pre-911. I don’t know how much clearer it can be when its in his own words.



You're totally misrepresenting, are you not? The above quote is NOT President Bush's own words.

These are not verbal or written quotes of President Bush, are they? If they are, they must be in some sort of archive somewhere, and I'd like to see them. Where and when exactly did he utter or write these words that you imply are a DIRECT QUOTE in the above paragraph?

[delayjf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't an embargo placed on Iraq oil exports due to his refusal to comply with the UN resolutions?? I know they were allowed to sell oil for food and I know they probably smuggled oil illegally. If that is true, then how were they able to manipulate oil prices if they can't export any oil??

[Larry Hamilton]

The absolute worst kind of a lie is to put a lie in someone elses mouth.....Nothing appears sacred to these libs. Have you had enough yet mike?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
You're totally misrepresenting, are you not? The above quote is NOT President Bush's own words.

These are not verbal or written quotes of President Bush, are they? If they are, they must be in some sort of archive somewhere, and I'd like to see them. Where and when exactly did he utter or write these words that you imply are a DIRECT QUOTE in the above paragraph?

It is not I not making this up. According to writer McKay from the Herald, the remarks were made BY BUSH at an April 2001 cabinet meeting pre-911. Hence his quotes in the article.

Here’s the article on Bush saying military intervention into Iraq is necessary for oil reasons.

http://www.sundayherald.com/print28285

I also re-listed the link Lefty said never occurred on the Taliban offering to hand over Bin Laden. Personally, I agree with not handing bin Laden over to a third party nation, but it bothers me when he infers I'm making something up.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_423546.html

[Secretariat]

btw..the writer if the article is Neil MacKay.

Neil MacKay was the winner of the News Journalist of the Year in Scotland for 2001 and 2002 and nominated for British Press Awards as best reporter in the UK in 2000 and 2001.

[schweitz]

First of all you misquote the article---second; this reporter has it all wrong. The report he is quoting " Strategic energy policy for the 21st century" is a report from an independent task force sponsered by the James Baker Institute for the Pubilc Policy of Rice University and the Council of Foreign Relations"

Instead of just posting the first thing that you find that slams Bush---why don't you do a little research

[schweitz]

I also re-listed the link Lefty said never occurred on the Taliban offering to hand over Bin Laden. Personally, I agree with not handing bin Laden over to a third party nation, but it bothers me when he infers I'm making something up.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_423546.html [/B][/QUOTE]

Of course you would believe that we can negotiate with terrorists.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
First of all you misquote the article---second; this reporter has it all wrong. The report he is quoting " Strategic energy policy for the 21st century" is a report from an independent task force sponsered by the James Baker Institute for the Pubilc Policy of Rice University and the Council of Foreign Relations"

Instead of just posting the first thing that you find that slams Bush---why don't you do a little research

It states "President Bush's CABINET in the article agreed", and I stand corrected in that it did not say Bush himself. Since it was his CABINET agreeing and not him I guess that does give him an a plausible denial since his cabinet does not speak for him as usual. I apologize for that.

However, please do not refer to the James Baker Institute for Public Policy as an independent task force. There is nothing independent about James Baker, and never has been.

Second, this reporter's credentials are impeccable as listed in my previous post? I've written to the writer and I'll be interested in his reply. How do you refute this reporter's claims? You say they're all wrong?

So I'll correct myself, and say according to the article that President Bush's CABINET agreed that miltary intervention WAS NECESSARY in Iraq pre-911 to stop the destabilizing influence on OIL.

You OK with that?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
I also re-listed the link Lefty said never occurred on the Taliban offering to hand over Bin Laden. Personally, I agree with not handing bin Laden over to a third party nation, but it bothers me when he infers I'm making something up.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_423546.html

Of course you would believe that we can negotiate with terrorists. [/B][/QUOTE]

And where did I say I belive we can negotiate with terrorists?

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat


So I'll correct myself, and say according to the article that President Bush's CABINET agreed that miltary intervention WAS NECESSARY in Iraq pre-911 to stop the destabilizing influence on OIL.

You OK with that? [/B]


No, I don't agree at all---I don't get that from the article at all---I posted what I believe it says several posts back

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Of course you would believe that we can negotiate with terrorists.

And where did I say I belive we can negotiate with terrorists? [/B][/QUOTE]


Your right you didn't say it---I hope you don't believe it . I apologize.

[delayjf]

So I'll correct myself, and say according to the article that President Bush's CABINET agreed that miltary intervention WAS NECESSARY in Iraq pre-911 to stop the destabilizing influence on OIL.

I hate to repeat myself, but how can a country that is not exporting any oil (legally) have a destabilizing influence on OIL prices?

[Suff]

complex situations require well thought out and open minded discussion. Unless your rambling and vomiting for expulsion sake.

I guess in certain circles the word liberal has negative conotations. I'm liberal. Proud of it. A few scant hours ago I walked unarmed, unprotected through a Palestinian Ghetto. I was invited there by my driver. He and I have gotten incredibly friendly and he was eager to show me how much he enjoyed my friendship. He asked me if I would join him at his home for a meal. I went. He told me not to speak ... that with him at my side and my common sense I would not be mistaken for an American. I went.

I'm a Massachusetts, north east liberal. If you can call me a coward. You have no conception of the word.

More later. I'm alive. I wanted my friends to know.

Mike

[Suff]

Originally posted by delayjf
I hate to repeat myself, but how can a country that is not exporting any oil (legally) have a destabilizing influence on OIL prices?

by destablizing both the grain and fossill fuel markets at once.

Trading oil for enough chick peas to feed Iraq for 10 years...and then flooding the chick pea market ....by selling it at less than production costs for cash. Oil for cash.via chick peas.. through 5 countries and 5 markets with profound imbalancing effect on 15 countries whose major exports are rice , grain et al....

Think Russia, France, Australia etc....

[Derek2U]

like now ur some Expert? u dint know zero b4 iraq and what
did u learn so quickly? nada but its good you still know englisH
and basic typing .... IOW's suff keep in touch but please beware
and dont put us in danger from contacting us so maybe you should type in code? ask lefty for his WW1 code book. LUV U ...
stay well ... hope 2 see U in toga (which Sol & me just planned) ..
speaking of danger, I'm going 2 israel in 2 weeks (for 6 days)
on business... SOL is soooo worried but hey, whatta gonna do ..
its a business trip & what could happen??? lol ,,, btw guys, its the
2nd week of toga im going so let me know ok .... chick peas? lol

[Tom]

Suff,
Glad to see you are OK.
News coverage here shows Iraq to pretty unstable and dangerous last few days. We heard they are now targeting foreign workers.

[Suff]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Why is it that people can't debate politics without taking things so personally and turning most every thread into a hate-fest?



Posters that purport to have an understanding of Global Differences cannot even be civil with Horse PLayers of differnet opnions.

Don't advise the world on how to get along if you can't tolerate or even maturely exist with your neighbor on PA.

I respect your opinion mike... but what about when you insult the power of Spaniards to vote thier conscience.

You believe in Democracy? They voted. You suggested they voted in mass ignorance or emotionalism. You gave me the impression that you "knew better"... that the vote was immature or ill conceived.

America wants to have representative democracy. Spainiards loudly and overwhelmingly rejected Bush's vision of the world. Both present day and its future course. I AGREE with them. And I hope that the message from Spain is heard at the white house.

WE REJECT YOU.

Thats thier right. They exercised it. Show your belief in the power of Democracy by trying to see what they are saying.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Derek2U
.... chick peas? lol

get off my cock. I know your there. Stop waving at me.

[Lefty]

Suff, Spain has a right to vote its conscience(if thats what it was) but if PA and I think they have reacted in a cowardly way it is also our right to say so. Sooner or later we'll prob have to go there to help take their country back from the terrorists they hope to appease.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
Suff, Spain has a right to vote its conscience(if thats what it was) but if PA and I think they have reacted in a cowardly way it is also our right to say so. Sooner or later we'll prob have to go there to help take their country back from the terrorists they hope to appease.

Hi Lefty... Good to hear from you.

I think there is some merit the vote was in fact "knee Jerk"..

But to say that "mass's" voted as cowards is very broad and quite glib. Europeans are frequently portrayed as appeasers based on the Error of thier ways with respect to Hitler. Its a jacket that americans love to hang on them. Can you say unequivicoally that because they were wrong about the Nazi's that they are unable to see real or imagined threats perpetually?

America did a great thing in WWII. Is that a free pass for a century? Are we granted the everlasting right to define all future threats to mankind. I bought Pat Buchannans book this week at "the death of the west". I'm reading it. I'm involved.. I'm open minded. No single position is 100% correct.
I like to hear and see different views.
My particular view at this moment is that the world is a different place than it was 50 years ago. Its time for a less caustic approach to the real and percieved threats of our time.



The word terrorist has lost all meaning in the world. We'll never stop them with violence or war. So what do we do? We will not "war" ourselves free of this plague. We need Vision. There is no Beach in Normandy that we can end it on....its deep within us. Your suggesting we can shock and awe it away? Or patriot act it away? Or "pre approved traveler it away".

I think we are agitating the problem using archaic thinking. We need profound changes to the way we operate in the world. We need new ideas, new avenues, new techniques.

The problem is larger than me. I humbly admit.. I have more questions than answers. My thinking is , George Bush, is the wrong man for the job.

[Lefty]

Suff, I disagree on all points but that's what makes a horserace.

[JustRalph]

They kidnapped Suff and stole his body and implanted a Poly Sci major!

Ohhhhhhhhhhh......The Friggin...Humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He probably now prefers the Sox, but is looking forward to

a brisk division race! My God.......those Terrorist Bastards!!!!!!!



Keep your high part low Mikey! and your lower part even lower....

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
They kidnapped Suff and stole his body and implanted a Poly Sci major!

Ohhhhhhhhhhh......The Friggin...Humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Keep your high part low Mikey! and your lower part even lower....

Funny. Good stuff Ralph. I can draw lines. And I told you I'm a fan of your boy J. Kasich out there... But I'll damn if anyone will shame me out my predominately liberal thought.

If you'd like to intellectually challenge my positions... it shant be to hard as I am not the sharpest knife in the draw...

But some folks out here think Liberals by thier nature retreat at the call... I don't and won't.

Call me liberal till your blue in the face. I think of the two polar opposites.... conservative vs Liberal. Its the better of the two. Although I share points from both in my decsions.
Dropping bombs...and Restricting our civil liberties...
George Bush's future for America I find chillingly inept.

[Lefty]

Bombs and bullets like bug spray. If you don't spray for roaches they will overrun you!

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
Bombs and bullets like bug spray. If you don't spray for roaches they will overrun you!

Female cockroachs carry thier eggs in a casing. Once they detect they have been fattally wounded by "Bug Spray"... they release the egg casing. This takes about 3 to 15 seconds. In that short time.. she releases a small portion of the toxin into the egg casing. She effcetively innoculates her young. Similiar to human vaccinating children with a virus to immunize them to its destructivness. Cockroachs do the same.

The spray that Killed thier Momma.... is useless on them.

Thats why Dow chemical is constantly coming up with "New" ideas for pest management. The same old ideas have no power.

carefull where you go... thinking men may be there.

[Lefty]

why do you libs always think terrorists and criminals can be appeased? I am a thinking man, suff, that's why i'm not a liberal.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Suff
Funny. Good stuff Ralph. I can draw lines. And I told you I'm a fan of your boy J. Kasich out there... But I'll damn if anyone will shame me out my predominately liberal thought.

Good for you. I don't like too many Libs, and frankly don't know that many, but there are a few on this board that I respect very much. (amazin, stop smiling....not you!) I have met some great guys and gals here and I don't give a damn about the politics when I like somebody I like them. I happen to have a couple of friends who are working in Iraq now...........at least I can say that.... huh? I hope I can include you in that. We have LSBets running around over there too.

Suff, be careful .....try to remember some of that crap they taught you at Lackland or Bullis. Hang in there. Let us know if you need anything.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
why do you libs always think terrorists and criminals can be appeased? I am a thinking man, suff, that's why i'm not a liberal.

Well, one man's terrorist is another man's patriot...Hence the Boston Tea Party.

I do not think we can appease terrorists, BUT to antagonize them functions as a catalyst for more acts.

Take the case of a kidnapper. He takes a kid, and demands ransom. As soon as one says absolutely no deal, the kidnapper has very little options. Either release the kid, or kill them. In other words the kidnapper has very little motivation for keeping the kid alive. The same is true with these terrorists. Once we say equivocally we don't negotiate, we basically leave them little options except to take retribution since there is nothing for them to lose. Add to that they feel there causes have been abandoned by the world. Does this justify their acts? Abosoltely not, BUT it makes them desperate men with nothing to lose. To unequivocally antagonize them serves little purpose.

Additionally, the US has negotiated with terrorists despite the Bush doctrine which states that "the global war on terror is about confronting terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. The United States does not make deals with terrorists or nations where they find safe lodging."

In April last year the Pentagon made a cooperation pact with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, American intelligence blamed it for the death of several U.S. nationals in Iran.

Most glaring of all is the Bush administration's remarkable treatment of Saudi Arabia. Consider: Eleven of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The ruling House of Saud has longstanding and well-known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits, which it funds to keep them from making mischief at home. The May issue of Atlantic Monthly had a nice piece on the House of Saud that recounts these connections.

Yet the Bush government has never said anything regarding the Saudis and international terrorism. In fact, when terror bombers struck Riyadh in May, hitting compounds that housed American workers as well, Colin Powell went out of his way to avoid any negativity concerning the House of Saud: "Terrorism strikes everywhere and everyone. It is a threat to the civilized world. We will commit ourselves again to redouble our efforts to work closely with our Saudi friends and friends all around the world to go after al Qaeda."

Later it was alleged that the Riyadh bombers purchased some of their ordnance from the Saudi National Guard, but neither Powell nor anyone else saw fit to revise their statements about "our Saudi friends."

Why does this administration ignore these Saudi connections associated to the Saudi terror funding? Because the House of Saud controls a lot of oil. And that, not terrorism, is what is dictating Bush's foreign policy.

[Tom]

OK, so we cannot spray them and win because they give immunity to their young.
So we have to use the old big boot and stomp on them.
Pointy-toed cowboy boots so you can get then ones in the corner!
:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

Sec, yeah, we shouldn't antagonize the terrorists. Sec, you don't have to antagonize them, they are ready and trying to wipe us out. Spain has a nice casa waiting for people who think like you.

[Secretariat]

Here's the latest intelligent remark to come out of the White House administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_re_eu/spain_no_bull_3

[Lefty]

sec, I guess Spain just can't take a compliment. I were you i'd worry about the outrageous things your candidate says.
I don't agree with "Wolf" I don't think it's brave at all for a human with more intelligence and a sword to kill a poor dumb animal.
These people have shown their true colors so to speak and it's not red.

[JustRalph]

The Spaniards and The French..... I am starting to get confused?

Whining ass baby's.......get real........200 freaking people doesn't even match the toll of fire and police officials who were killed on 9-11. This is starting to get a little old. In the Grand Context of terrorist victims, this is a small event. They allow an election to be "thrown" over it and they want the whole world to feel sorry for them and listen to them bitch because they think it is our fault. It is getting a little old. Pull your damn troops...run away and hide into your socialist cradle of whipsaw emotion and don't ever come back. You have given in. The terrorists control spain.........the real Supreme Government of Spain lies in the sloth like movements of a beast that treads in shadows and trades on the smell of death. The Socialist party in Spain is a figure head with no real power anymore. The Terrorist governors lie in wait for another chance to direct the Government away from foresight, stability and a common path of progress. No matter the reason why they gave in, they have seceded the country to common everyday 21st century thugs. As the shadows grow longer, the vision of the people of Spain decreases. They have failed their brethren and their countrymen. In the years to come they will need to seek a great light to bring them out of the darkness. But I am afraid they do not possess a leader who can carry that lantern. Let alone don the Vaquero attire needed to lead. We have our own Vaquero and for all the complaining about the role. I am glad he is here. He was described yesterday in what was meant to be a put down, as "The Lone Ranger" Spain needs its own Ranger.................I always thought the Lone Ranger was a hero........is there not a hero left in all of Spain?

[Secretariat]

JR,

Wasn't this the Spain you were defending just a few days ago before the election? Did they turn dumb overnight?

[ljb]

Lefty said
"I don't agree with "Wolf" I don't think it's brave at all for a human with more intelligence and a sword to kill a poor dumb animal."
Lefty you may want to see if you can get PA to delete this note. You are disagreeing with one of the administrations hawks and in the same sentence you are sounding like a member of PETA.
Say it ain't so lefty!
;)

[Tom]

Watching bullfights is not a badge of courage, it is a badge is sickness.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
JR,Wasn't this the Spain you were defending just a few days ago before the election? Did they turn dumb overnight?

No....it took about two days and one idiot election.......for them to turn into half ass Frenchmen........ now it is getting a little old.....that was the point of my last post.

[Tom]

How about the Taiwan election?
They shoot one side and the other is calling foul!
Makes our hanging chads look normal!

[Lefty]

lbj, I can disagree with who I please and I don't have to be member of the wacko PETA to have respect and love for animals.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Lefty
lbj, I can disagree with who I please and I don't have to be a member of the religous right to have respect and love for america.

[Lefty]

suff, that's true, but don't misquote me, it's a cheap liberal trick. Nobody said you had to be a member of the religious right to have love for America. But if that's what you want to say have the guts to say it yourself and not put words in my mouth, so to speak.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Ok you talk big under an internet alias but you wouldn't disagree with the hawk in real life. And let me see you down at the stable talking about your love for poor defenseless animals. I know your kind lefty; big hat, no cattle.

[Tom]

Internet alias?
That accusation would carry a wee bit more weight if it weren't coming from another internet alias.
And you know all aobut Lefty's real life do you?
Data please. (Hint, in the past you have mistaken the terms data
and BS...please look it up this time)

[Lefty]

lbj, you're not very discerning, are you? Most people who have read this board for some time know my real name. It's Chuck Swope. If you think I wouldn't disagree with someone, anyone, face to face you just don't know me. BTW, I do put my money and time where my mouth is when it comes to animals. Like I say, you don't know me.

[Tom]

Some of us here are not hiding behind cyber names, Ljb,
so are YOU ready to come out of the closet or do you prefer to throw troll bombs from anonimity?

:confused:

[JustRalph]

http://www.democrats.org/ecaptains/

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
I respect your opinion mike... but what about when you insult the power of Spaniards to vote thier conscience.

You believe in Democracy? They voted. You suggested they voted in mass ignorance or emotionalism. You gave me the impression that you "knew better"... that the vote was immature or ill conceived.

If you want to take it as an insult, so be it. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Hooray for Spain! They have now turned terrorist bombings into a VERY POWERFUL LOBBYING TOOL.

Congratulations to them! I can hardly wait for the next major election that isn't going the way the terrorists would like it to go in the days leading up to the big vote.

[Secretariat]

PA,

Democracy voted. The polls conducted in Spain have shown that the people of Spain have been against the Iraqi involvement ever since it started. The perception here is this is something new due to the Madrid bombing. It's been that way all along regarding Iraq. I think if you questioned the average Spainard today if they were against Al Quaida and terrorism they would answer Yes. If questioned whether they beleived this war against terror related to Iraq they would say no.

[Lefty]

Yes, but a couple days before the bombing the polls showed the socialists behind. Democracy has voted but they will find that you can't capitulate to terrorists.

[Tom]

They voted the way they wanted to. Free country.
I say screw Spain-don't ever look to us for help again-live in your own little world with terrorists. If the US ever tries to give Spain any aid or protection from terorism, I will take to the streets and protest. They do not deserve our consideration. They are worthless to us as an ally.

[PaceAdvantage]

Giving way to terrorist bombs isn't democracy. If the voting result was changed as a result of these bombings, and there is every indication that the bombings had a MAJOR effect, then how can this be a good thing?

Was it a vote fostered by democracy, or was it a vote fostered by fear and intimidation?

[Lefty]

PA, you're right. This vote clearly a result of fear, intimidation and the false hope that now the terrorists will leave them alone. It won't happen.