quote:Originally posted by typh00n
i think you're confused. Iraq had/has nothin to do with stamping out terrorism, and was entirely our initiative (not 'oh please America invade this country for us').


Actually simply because the media says so doesnt make it so. The sooner you guys realize that the media has a liberal slant to it the better off you will be. There were connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. You guys should really research things and understand that the media has an agenda. It is made up of liberals who will stop at nothing to get Kerry elected. Stop listening to what Nightline says and actually research things and you will come to understand just how biased it is. Does anyone diagree with the statement that there was a link between them? If so please post here and I will show you.

quote:Originally posted by Lazarus Plus

I just want to say that I always found that John Kerry a little abrasive, a little bit of an overstater, but I will still vote for him. I just don't see getting American troops getting blown away in some part of the world that hates our guts. There are, IMO, more important things to do than have a full blown war in some Darn desert in the middle of nowhere.


Then i beg you to remember that statement in three years when we have another 9-11. How many terrorist attacks on OUR soil has there been in the past 3 years? If we arent fighting them on THEIR home turf, we WILL be fighting them on ours.

quote: You guys should really research things and understand that the media has an agenda. It is made up of liberals who will stop at nothing to get Kerry elected. Stop listening to what Nightline says and actually research things and you will come to understand just how biased it is. Does anyone diagree with the statement that there was a link between them? If so please post here and I will show you.

There are more tangible and historically documented links between Al Qaeda and our government than with Saddam.

Of course the media has an agenda. But you should stop trying to discredit a persons' opinion on the basis that you 'think' they get all their information from CNN or Fox.

I read the sources you posted somewhere earlier in the thread and i wasn't impressed. If obviously biased conservative ezines are the best you can come up with to support your cause then what does that say about your opinion? You're criticizing people for watching news with a liberal slant, while its perfectly o.k to get your information from the opposite end of the spectrum, and then calling that research.

Note on 'liberal media'.
quote:Source: NYSE corprate listing for Clear Channel Communications
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is a diversified media company with three primary business segments: radio broadcasting, outdoor advertising and live entertainment. As of December 31, 2003, the Company owned 1,182 domestic radio stations and a radio network in the United States. In addition, it had equity interests in various international radio broadcasting companies. Clear Channel also owned or operated 145,895 domestic outdoor advertising display faces and 641,680 international outdoor advertising display faces. The Company also operates as a promoter, producer and venue operator for live entertainment events. As of December 31, 2003, it owned or operated 74 live entertainment venues domestically and 29 live entertainment venues internationally, excluding 23 domestic venues and two international venues. Clear Channel also owns or programs 39 television stations, owns a media representation firm and represents professional athletes.

Just out of curiosity. Is there anyone here who thinks Clear Channels 'agenda' is 'liberal'? By the way they are also listed as the largest media group in the country.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
Then i beg you to remember that statement in three years when we have another 9-11.

Fear is a great way to control people. Unfortunately people are not buying the 'fear argument' anymore. I for one will not live my life in fear of what might happen.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
How many terrorist attacks on OUR soil has there been in the past 3 years?

Hmmmmm, one. September 11th 2001.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
If we arent fighting them on THEIR home turf, we WILL be fighting them on ours.

I thought the latest administration reason for going into and remaining in Iraq was to free those oppressed people and build a democracy. Now we are looking to fight 'them' on their own turf to keep them away from ours? I am going to assume you mean the 'terrorists'. Okay. Shouldn't we have remained focused on Afghanistan, were we knew the main architect of the September 11th 2001 attacks and his comrades were?

Just my opinion.
Brian

quote:Originally posted by Brian T

Fear is a great way to control people. Unfortunately people are not buying the 'fear argument' anymore. I for one will not live my life in fear of what might happen.

You don't have to be afraid to have a building fall on your head or a WMD kill your entire family. If your not afraid for yourself, be afraid for your family and fellow americans. Support the cause and make sure it never happens again.

True there hasn't been another attack on the U.S. in the past 3 years other than 9/11. Only because we have ensured it with action both at home and abroad.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector

quote:Originally posted by typh00n
i think you're confused. Iraq had/has nothin to do with stamping out terrorism, and was entirely our initiative (not 'oh please America invade this country for us').


Actually simply because the media says so doesnt make it so. The sooner you guys realize that the media has a liberal slant to it the better off you will be. There were connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. You guys should really research things and understand that the media has an agenda. It is made up of liberals who will stop at nothing to get Kerry elected. Stop listening to what Nightline says and actually research things and you will come to understand just how biased it is. Does anyone diagree with the statement that there was a link between them? If so please post here and I will show you.


Besides the fact that Saddam's Iraq and Al-Qaeda are composed of radical fundamentalist Muslims, what else do they have in common besides they both hate the USA? Both Bin Laden and Saddam disagreed on many things, and yet both supported terror. Saddam gave the families of suicide bombers money, and Bin Laden got his funds from rich Muslims who where royalty in other countries. Both are of course cowards that have others fight and die for them.

Saddam was a cruel and evil man who killed and tourtured anyone who dared stand up to him. Saddam was a dictator who pretended to have a Democracy.

Bin Laden is a cruel and evil man, who wants to have killed anyone who does not believe as he does.

There was a document that talked about a link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... walq27.xml

Yet no evidence that the meeting between Bin Laden and Saddam took place. More like a "I'll send one of my men to talk to your men, if it works out we can meet sometime." Also note that this happened before Bin Laden made it to the most wanted list.

Now the more important question is: "Did Saddam have anything to do with the 911 attacks?"

Rumsfeld says "No":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... -911_x.htm

Now despite the document, there is no evidence of a follow-up meeting, or any other meeting or communications since then.

I have looked and searched and researched, and I have not found a link between Saddam and Bin Laden other than that memo found. I must admit the memo is weak and only proves they wanted to talk, but no evidence shows that they did.

So I have these questions for you, and I noticed you did not answer my other questions, so maybe you won't answer these either? Avoidence is not a very good thing to have, I must say, and weakens your position.

"Is Rumsfeld a liar then? Is there a link between Saddam and 911?"

"Is there any evidence to show that a meeting between Bin Laden and Saddam took place after that memo was written?"

"Is the memo the only piece of evidence you have to show a link?"

"Was anyone from Iraq involved in the 911 attack?"

"Is Conservitive Media News any more or less slanted that Liberal Media News? What about Moderate Media News or Indpendant Media News from other countries?"

"Are you not answering my questions because you can't, or that you do not want to?"

quote:Originally posted by PHX
You don't have to be afraid to have a building fall on your head or a WMD kill your entire family. If your not afraid for yourself, be afraid for your family and fellow americans.

Our own government put together ads within a few months of the attack telling us not to be afraid. To get on with life. I like everyone else felt the pain of loss from September 11th 2001. In memory of those that fell to that di****able act I will not be afraid of the scum who committed this vial act nor the possibility or threat of another attack. Instead of being afraid I would like to say that we all must be vigilant. That is the price we pay for freedom. Fear is not required to do that. As Ben Franklin said, 'if you sacrifice liberty for security, you have neither liberty nor security.'

quote:Originally posted by PHX
Support the cause and make sure it never happens again.

I have devoted more than 23 years of my life along with many friends in service to my counrty, my family, my friends and my fellow Americans. That includes both gulf wars and many months at a time away from them. How much more support should I give. I very proud of my service, and the service of all who have given and like me continue to give. If I am taking your statement out of context, forgive me, but please do not presume to lecture me on supporting anything.[:)]

quote:Originally posted by PHX
True there hasn't been another attack on the U.S. in the past 3 years other than 9/11. Only because we have ensured it with action both at home and abroad.

I never said that 'an attack has not occured in 3 years'. On September 11th 2004 it will be 3 years since the attack on us. I do believe we started out in a noble and just effort in Afghanistan. We should've finished that war. There was no valid reason to attack Iraq. No WMD's have been found. Again, I wish to remind you that according to the administration we are there to liberate the Iraqi people. There latest words, not mine.

One final thought. I live my life without fear. Why? Because I am strong, I am intelligent, and I am vigilant. I will protect my country, my family, my friends, and my fellow Americans to the best of my ability. In my humble opinion it is time to change the leadership of this country. I plan to aid in that effort November 7th 2004. I encourage every American to vote regardless of what party you vote for.

Thank you all.
Brian

quote:
Besides the fact that Saddam's Iraq and Al-Qaeda are composed of radical fundamentalist Muslims, what else do they have in common besides they both hate the USA?

You mean besides that either of them would love to see us cease to be a country? That isnt enough? The problem with libs is they lose credibility so fast because they care more about others than they do about the American people. For example, I am sure you remember seeing Kerry, et al, speak out harshly about how HORRIBLE the beheading was. The dems lined up en masse to attack the administration about the naked pyramid, yet they dont say much about something like the Berg incident. It is amazing to me how gullible some people in this country are.

quote:
There was a document that talked about a link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... walq27.xml
Yet no evidence that the meeting between Bin Laden and Saddam took place. More like a "I'll send one of my men to talk to your men, if it works out we can meet sometime."

LOL! This sums up my entire argument with people who are so caught up in wanting to belong to some movement that they will say or do anything. This memo shows that not only did al qaeda meet with sadaam, but that the meeting went so well it lasted a week longer than planned. Let me see, I bet they decided to play golf at 7 other palaces because the operative liked the first two courses so much. What do you think they were doing? They were talking about ways to kill YOU and ME. It doesnt take rocket science to see the m.o. of the liberal: Bad mouth Bush because he doesnt make everything he knows public and when that stuff Bush says turns out to be true, lie, lie, spin, lie, spin, and then get ALL dems to come out and publicly claim that even though evidence points to it being true it just ISNT TRUE. Wake up! How many times have you heard idiots like kerry and kennedy claim there is NO LINK between them? This document provides a link, yet how many prime time news programs reported it? Finally, refer to the following article for some other info. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 8fmxyz.asp
I realize that you are a liberal and the only things you consider "facts" are those that paint Bush in a bad way. However, if you think for even a second that ANY reporter knows everything, you are silly. There is alot more evidence than either of us will ever know.

quote:Now the more important question is: "Did Saddam have anything to do with the 911 attacks?"

No, the more important question is "Would Saddam have provided bin laden with a wmd in order to destroy America?"

quote:Now despite the document, there is no evidence of a follow-up meeting, or any other meeting or communications since then.

Naive. You have no idea what evidence we have. THINK for just a second and then tell me how many democrat senators would have voted for the Iraqi war if there was "no evidence".

quote:I must admit the memo is weak and only proves they wanted to talk, but no evidence shows that they did.

According to this logic there is never an actual meeting between two countries unless their actual leaders meet? Naive.

quote:So I have these questions for you, and I noticed you did not answer my other questions, so maybe you won't answer these either?

Perhaps I will scroll back when i get a chance and find these questions you asked and answer them too.

quote:"Is Rumsfeld a liar then? Is there a link between Saddam and 911?"

An actual memo from saddam to bin laden? No, probably not. However, a link between the two, which i will remind you is what Bush claimed all along, yes I think that there is sufficient evidence to support that.

quote:"Is there any evidence to show that a meeting between Bin Laden and Saddam took place after that memo was written?"

Yes, plenty of evidence that their representatives met. If only Clinton had taken the offer from a "representative" of the Sudanese government to a "representative" of his government we might not be having this converstaion.

quote:"Is the memo the only piece of evidence you have to show a link?"

Let me guess, it isnt sufficient? LMAO. You guys kill me. The memo proves a "link". I know it is tough for dems as they are the same people who think that oral sex isnt sex.

quote:"Was anyone from Iraq involved in the 911 attack?"

Who knows? However, since you guys put so much stock in the workings of the judicial system (see gay marriage and abortion) here is a link for you:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... ards_x.htm

quote:"Is Conservitive Media News any more or less slanted that Liberal Media News? What about Moderate Media News or Indpendant Media News from other countries?"


Fox news reports good and bad things about Bush. Of course everyone knows that many of the people on Fox are Republican. The difference is that the prime time networks that host shows like 60 minutes have people watching them that are convinced that those reporters have no agenda whatsoever. That is ludicrous as you can see by the types of programs they have had recently. Does anyone besides me find it weird that after many of these people are discredited those same news programs dont say a word about that? How many conservative authors has 60 minutes had on recently? How many conservatives did they have on during the Clinton years? How many of those people were given free reign to bash slick in order to sell more books? Most of the stories about politics on the big three news channels report with a very obvious liberal slant. When someone like Fox comes in and starts to criticize dems you guys throw a fit and claim they are being partisan when they are actually being truthful.

quote:That is called freedom to peaceably assemble to protest against the government. The basic right to have grievances heard. The groups of which you speak have banded together to do that very thing. To my knowledge there is no restriction to the volume of that speech or area that you can protest.

And it is my right to call them unpatriotic and say that they are partly to blame for the willingness of these terrorists to continue to fight.

quote:Many who initially supported the war in Iraq as the need was portrayed by the current administration to remove WMD and the maniac Sadam about to unleash them feel betrayed by the President.

Then those same people MUST feel betrayed by the senators who had access to the same evidence that Bush did. Oh wait, no, the liberal media forgets to mention that part of it.

quote:That is why they speak loudly and in groups and in public about their opposition to the President. That does not mean they are bad mouthing the their country. That's the same as saying 'America love it or leave it'. When you bring public debate on issues like these people can make informed decisions. Not decisions based on fear and ignorance.

Hmmm, where to start...do you think the terrorists think that if they keep fighting the American people will finally force the government to cave? As for informed decisions...If you are basing your opinion on the "debate" that programs like 60 minutes offer then I would say you are ignorant.



quote:If that is how they see us then that is their folly. Many of them have considered us a 'paper tiger'. They perceive weakness and division were there is none. I trully believe the Taliban and al-Qeada didn't think we would do anything. Who cares if they are smiling and laughing and jumping for joy because of the media broadcasts of protests? That is because they do not understand the true nature of our people. That when push comes to shove we will stand together.

That is problem with your thinking. You are under the assumption that Kerry will actually take a stand against them. Dont be fooled. If we are attacked again like we were on 911, the public pressure will be immense and he will fight back. However, if we have several USS Cole's spaced out a few years apart kerry will accomplish as much as Clinton did. Can you dispute that al-qaeda's power grew while slick was in office and it has decreased while Bush is in office?

quote:By the same token we will tear down those who lie to us and take us to war over false prestense as in Iraq. To date we have found no WMD. Which despite the changes in administrative rehetoric is the main reason we went to war. We also eventually see those who try to keep us in fear. I think that makes us really angry. It is our ability to see these things for what they are is what makes us great. Our desire to find the truth, even when it hurts. Basically, I could careless that terrorists thinks we are weak.

Another problem. If they think we are strong they will be less likely to pull off another 911. The reasons we went to war with Iraq are many. Would you have blamed Bush if Iraq provided al qaeda with a WMD and they used it to kill 20000 Americans? I think we all KNOW you would have. YOu would have been on here saying things like "Bush ignored the evidence of a link between them!" or "Bush acted reactively instead of proactively!"

quote:Then I guess I am not a moron. [:D] I definately know the government makes mistakes. They should be held accountable for those mistakes. When they lie about those mistakes or try to cover them up they should be exposed in the loudest and most public manner possible. It is the lowest form of deceipt to lie to the public that you swore and oath to protect. That makes me sad and angry.

Easy to say now, but I am SURE you called for slicks impeachment then?

quote:
Look at the difference in those numbers. Where is the war on terrorism? Sure there are terrorists in Iraq, but you should never start a second front, if you don't have to (and we didn't) until you have finished the first.

Who says we didnt have to? Were you there for the meetings between the CIA and Bush? I, for one, havent heard much about terrorists in Afghanistan lately. YOu guys whine because we dont have an exit policy in Iraq and you whine when we exit a front of the war that is quite.

quote:Originally posted by typh00n

quote: You guys should really research things and understand that the media has an agenda. It is made up of liberals who will stop at nothing to get Kerry elected. Stop listening to what Nightline says and actually research things and you will come to understand just how biased it is. Does anyone diagree with the statement that there was a link between them? If so please post here and I will show you.

There are more tangible and historically documented links between Al Qaeda and our government than with Saddam.

Of course the media has an agenda. But you should stop trying to discredit a persons' opinion on the basis that you 'think' they get all their information from CNN or Fox.

I read the sources you posted somewhere earlier in the thread and i wasn't impressed. If obviously biased conservative ezines are the best you can come up with to support your cause then what does that say about your opinion? You're criticizing people for watching news with a liberal slant, while its perfectly o.k to get your information from the opposite end of the spectrum, and then calling that research.


Actually I very rarely point to sources that are obviously conservative. Usually when i do, it is only because the article is an interesting read. If I did so in an earlier post and stated as fact anything that was said I apologize. I, however, could post MANY conservative articles, but you libs would have a hard time understanding them. They typically arent laced with cuss words and unpatriotic complaining. Also, they are on a much higher thinking level than the filth the liberal authors write.

The bottom line is, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Saddam and Bin Laden both hate us. IF you truly do not understand why we are in Iraq, and why we are fighting then you need to watch the video of Nick Burg’s last moments. THAT is what we are fighting.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is part on the same war on terror. Iraq had WMD’s at one time, and more likely than not they were shipped to another country prior to us invading.

It really does upset me that people do not understand this. We cannot have peace with these people until they are all dead. Even if we back out of Iraq and leave the Middle East altogether they will come fight us here in America. I would rather have these fools fight the greatest military ever on their land then have our local police and fire department battle them here on ours.

Of course we could just use one minute man missile. Anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or your next one is free.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
And it is my right to call them unpatriotic and say that they are partly to blame for the willingness of these terrorists to continue to fight.

Wow! I don't believe at any point in this discussion I ever said you couldn't say things like that. I merely explained to you why they could say what they say, protest what they want and you can say whatever you want and protest what you want. Isn't America great like that. [:)]

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
Then those same people MUST feel betrayed by the senators who had access to the same evidence that Bush did. Oh wait, no, the liberal media forgets to mention that part of it.

There is that term again. "Liberal media". [:D] Anyway, I imagine they do. Several of us feel that there has been a fundemental flaw in the whole situation leading up to the war in Iraq. Many of those in Congress, on both sides of the aisle in and in the Senate did not do their duty and stand up and ask the right questions. Who knows why?

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
Hmmm, where to start...do you think the terrorists think that if they keep fighting the American people will finally force the government to cave? As for informed decisions...If you are basing your opinion on the "debate" that programs like 60 minutes offer then I would say you are ignorant.

Interesting. I believe at no point in our discussion have I resorted to insulting you. Check the quote you were responding to. The only reason I have discussed this with any of you is because I like to hear what others think about many different things. As for how I determine what I believe, I mainly base it on experience and real research. More specifically, My actual experience during my service to my country. The things I have seen and done in the past 23 years. Additionally I read books, news papers, the internet, watching multiple news sources. Then I gather all that info together and see what it all means to me. I hope that helps you understand how I form my opinions. [:)]

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
That is problem with your thinking. You are under the assumption that Kerry will actually take a stand against them. Dont be fooled. If we are attacked again like we were on 911, the public pressure will be immense and he will fight back. However, if we have several USS Cole's spaced out a few years apart kerry will accomplish as much as Clinton did.

So you are saying that if we had been faced with those kind of attacks instead of what actually happened on September 11th 2001, Bush would have attacked Afghanistan or Iraq, or whoever immediately? Interesting. Reagan, and Bush Senior had terrorist attacks during their administrations of the size and severity of the USS Cole. As I recall the only war in those years was the first Gulf War.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
Can you dispute that al-qaeda's power grew while slick was in office and it has decreased while Bush is in office?

al-Qaeda grew out of the Reagan era. Remember back when we helped Afghanistan fight the former Soviet Union? The Soviets pulled out eventually. al-Qeada was one of the groups within Afghanistan that we helped with training and weapons. That includes bin Laden. Our mistake there was leaving that country in the shambles caused by that prolonged fight to throw the Soviets out. We should've followed up and helped them re-build. Perhaps if we had followed up in the years between now and then September 11th 2001 would not have happened. Hind sight is always 20/20.

I would say that evidence points to the fact that al-Qeada activities were not seen by both Clinton and Bush as any significant threat. They were both wrong. I believe that anyone who was presented with those attacks would've responded in similar ways as we did in Afghanistan. Iraq is were the difference really remains.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
Another problem. If they think we are strong they will be less likely to pull off another 911. The reasons we went to war with Iraq are many. Would you have blamed Bush if Iraq provided al qaeda with a WMD and they used it to kill 20000 Americans? I think we all KNOW you would have. YOu would have been on here saying things like "Bush ignored the evidence of a link between them!" or "Bush acted reactively instead of proactively!"

The real question is, did he have them to provide to al-Qeada or any other terrorist organization? At present we still have not found them. What if? I'll tell you this. At the moment we have powerful evidence of North Korea's nuclear program. They admitted they have been secretly developing nukes. We won't attack them because that will put us face to face with the Chinese. Not to mention if they actually have a nuke or two Kim Jung Il would use them. I was stationed there for 2 years he is not all there.

Actually I usually only come here to discuss Trade Wars 2002 and find out cool stuff about it. Thanks for trying to decide what I would or wouldn't do for me. I had no idea you could do that. You are amazing.[:D]

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
Easy to say now, but I am SURE you called for slicks impeachment then?

You got me there. Just out of curiousity. How many folks died as a direct result of Clinton's lie? That has to be the most expensive blow job in history. What was the final tally? Over 40 million. By the way, what did that BJ have to do with the white water investigation? I'm sure it had something to do with something white, but not water.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector
Who says we didnt have to? Were you there for the meetings between the CIA and Bush? I, for one, havent heard much about terrorists in Afghanistan lately. YOu guys whine because we dont have an exit policy in Iraq and you whine when we exit a front of the war that is quite.

Afghanistan is far from complete. The reason you haven't heard much about Afghanistan lately is not many Americans have died recently. Does that mean the mission is complete. I would say no. We can't just pull out and hope they can re-build. We need to help them re-build, and finish finding the remaining al-Qeada in that area. Otherwise we will have to go back again. Remember we were going to find those responsible for the attacks on September 11th 2001 and make them pay. Granted, we have found many of them, sure we have crippled al-Qeada. We have not stopped them. They still conduct attacks on our allies, and are no doubt seeking ways to strike at us again too. I believe the 11,500 troops deployed to Afghanistan, many of them my friends, would tell you that we have not finished there. Add to that the additional 2000 troops being sent there by the end of the year. Is there an exit strategy for either war?

Now having said that. Should we pull out of Iraq? We clearly cannot just pull out. If we do that we will have to go back again eventually. The situation will deteriorate even further. So how do we do it? What we are doing right now doesn't appear to be working. Are we going to be there for many years? You bet. Should we care? Well I think so. As long as our fellow Americans are dying there we should care.

So what do we do? Please tell me what you think we should do. Not what you think Bush would do better than Kerry. Tell me what you think we should do. I would be interested in hearing a real discussions on that. The petty name calling and political grandstanding aside. What should we do?

Thanks,
Brian

quote:Originally posted by Dr-Doog

The bottom line is, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Saddam and Bin Laden both hate us.

A quick correction. DR, please don't take this as an insult. It's "bin Laden". That is similar to "von Ryan" or something like that. Basically it is like saying "of". What does that have to do with your point? Simply this, 'Know your enemy and know yourself, and you can fight 100 battles and be victorious.' Source: Sun Tzu

quote:Originally posted by Dr-Doog
IF you truly do not understand why we are in Iraq, and why we are fighting then you need to watch the video of Nick Burg’s last moments. THAT is what we are fighting.

What happened to Nick Berg is horrible. We are fighting now to free Iraq from the tyranny and the grip of those like the ones in that terrible video. Was that what we started out to fight in Iraq? No. Was it what we started out fighting in Afghanistan? Yes.

quote:Originally posted by Dr-Doog
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is part on the same war on terror. Iraq had WMD’s at one time, and more likely than not they were shipped to another country prior to us invading.

So now we have a blank check to invade anyone we "think" might be holding onto those weapons?

quote:Originally posted by Dr-Doog
It really does upset me that people do not understand this. We cannot have peace with these people until they are all dead.

So kill them all? There is no easy answer here. You are right, we cannot make peace with these terrorists. Unilateral action does not make us more secure either.

quote:Originally posted by Dr-Doog
Even if we back out of Iraq and leave the Middle East altogether they will come fight us here in America. I would rather have these fools fight the greatest military ever on their land then have our local police and fire department battle them here on ours.

We agree that we cannot back out of Iraq regardless of why we went in there. It would only make the situation worse. So what do we do? We need to stabalize the country. Hard to do. Even with all my military experience I do not see a clear way to do it. As I said in my last post in response to Bone Collector. Please tell me what you think we should do. Not what you think Bush would do better than Kerry. Tell me what you think we should do.

quote:Originally posted by Dr-Doog
Of course we could just use one minute man missile. Anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or your next one is free.

Interesting suggestion. Not viable, but interesting. [:)]

Thanks,
Brian

Nuke em.








LokI is powering up weapons systems!