Major terror attack

[Doctrine1st]

What I think some people fail to realize is that lil' old Libya had the resources and talent to send its agents out to blow up one of our airliners over Lockerbie, Scotland. If Libya did it, what would prevent Saddam from doing the same? He already demonstrated his bravado by shooting at our fighters on an almost daily basis and trying to assasinate former president George Bush.... but forget all of that for a moment. I'm glad we attacked Iraq and spared the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who would have perished under Saddam's brutal regime.

If 'if' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'll all have a Merry Christmas. Yes he could have did that anytime he wanted to, but wisely chose not too. As far as Bush Sr., now why would he want to wack such a once stanch ally?

 

[jameseb]

If 'if' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'll all have a Merry Christmas. Yes he could have did that anytime he wanted to, but wisely chose not too. As far as Bush Sr., now why would he want to wack such a once stanch ally?

Are you going to seriously discuss what I said or not?

 

[Grizzly]

What I think some people fail to realize is that lil' old Libya had the resources and talent to send its agents out to blow up one of our airliners over Lockerbie, Scotland. If Libya did it, what would prevent Saddam from doing the same? He already demonstrated his bravado by shooting at our fighters on an almost daily basis and trying to assasinate former president George Bush.... but forget all of that for a moment. I'm glad we attacked Iraq and spared the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who would have perished under Saddam's brutal regime.

James, do we attack people based upon what their neighbors are capable of? What does Libya have to do with Iraq? That excuse could be applied to anyone. "If Lybia did it, what is stopping COUNTRY X from doing it?". It's not a great argument to start a war with, because it applies to almost every country on earth.

The "removal of the brutal regime" argument is also an interesting one. Unfortunately, that wasn't the reason the american people authorized the war. Iraq had WMD's, ties to Osama, and were looking to go nuclear. They were presented as an immediate threat to the US. It now appears that was not the case. Would the American people have agreed to go on what amounts to a Nation Building Excersize (something George Bush used to be against until he flip-flopped on the issue)? I doubt it.

The "Saddam needed to go" argument is also interesting. But there are so many people suffering the same fate around the world. Millions of people are starving under the brutal regime in North Korea. They also ADMIT to having weapons of mass destruction AND they appear to have the missile capabilities to hit our west coast. Why not invade there instead?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Are you going to seriously discuss what I said or not?

With all due respect James, what's to seriously discuss? The invasion of Iraq was based on known weapons of mass destruction, how many and how much, Iraq being an imminent threat, our destruction, and that nuclear mushroom cloud. Not the remote "what if" speculative conspiracy of shooting down a airliner with a rocket launcher. What's stopping anyone who has a beef with the US from doing the same? And my question was serious, what happen between us and Saddam that changed him from ally to enemy? Why would he have so much contempt for an administration that was once willing to blame his gassing kurds; on Iran, and to turn around and try to wack it's leader?

 

[Starscream]

Oh, you have a recruitment roster? Please, share it with us all.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1014

 

[Starscream]

Just look at what happened in Spain - it's like a green light

I hope our country (US) can stand firm in its resolve and not become "wobbly", as is happening.

What are you guys getting at? Are you suggesting that another terrorist attack should cause us to stand behind Bush? How does that stop terrorists from manipulating us any further?

I guess there's different ways to look at the response in Spain. It's easy to jump on the wagon and accuse of them of cowardice in light of their worst terrorist attacks. Thank God the response we got from the free world at large when it was our turn was nicer, huh?

If a leader fails to protect his people from terrorists than I can't blame the citizens for wanting change.

 

[MidKnight]

Breaking News...

Bush Dropping To New Low in Polls...Recent Speech Falls Flat...Non-Specific Terror Threat Now In Effect...Do Not Let The Terrorists Scare You Into Voting For Kerry...

Come on people, how long are you going to be played?

 

[jameseb]

James, do we attack people based upon what their neighbors are capable of? What does Libya have to do with Iraq? That excuse could be applied to anyone. "If Lybia did it, what is stopping COUNTRY X from doing it?". It's not a great argument to start a war with, because it applies to almost every country on earth.

The "removal of the brutal regime" argument is also an interesting one. Unfortunately, that wasn't the reason the american people authorized the war. Iraq had WMD's, ties to Osama, and were looking to go nuclear. They were presented as an immediate threat to the US. It now appears that was not the case. Would the American people have agreed to go on what amounts to a Nation Building Excersize (something George Bush used to be against until he flip-flopped on the issue)? I doubt it.

The "Saddam needed to go" argument is also interesting. But there are so many people suffering the same fate around the world. Millions of people are starving under the brutal regime in North Korea. They also ADMIT to having weapons of mass destruction AND they appear to have the missile capabilities to hit our west coast. Why not invade there instead?

Well, for one, I'm not presupposing it was a reason for war to begin with. However, to suggest it could be any country in the world to pull a stunt off like Libya did, I'd quite resoundingly disagree. Most countries, in fact, do not support that kind of terrorism at all.

While people here can make their arguments regarding reasons for war and reason why we shouldn't have gone to war, I look at it more simplistic ways. What no one here can deny is that thousands upon thousands of lives will not be lost to Saddam's brutal regime now. That's a fact. That is undeniable. You cannot politically spin that truth away.

 

[Ampmonster]

let me sum up everything the media has to say:

be afraid.
be afraid.
be afraid.
be afraid.
be afraid.
be afraid.
be afraid.
be afraid.

 

[praying]

I don't know if anyone posted this info, but tom Ridge said this mornign that they will release photos of suspected terrorist whjo they believe are in the country currently and part of this plot this summer.

It's a scary world. Pray Hug your kids kiss your loved ones.

 

[praying]

Breaking News...

Bush Dropping To New Low in Polls...Recent Speech Falls Flat...Non-Specific Terror Threat Now In Effect...Do Not Let The Terrorists Scare You Into Voting For Kerry...

Come on people, how long are you going to be played?

I tell you what I work in NYC and have every reason to be afraid. I ride the train to work (where thay have bomb sniffing dogs) and travel on the subway. I see armed National Guards and police everywhere. So it is a real concern for me.

I will not however vote for GWB.

 

[praying]

The "Saddam needed to go" argument is also interesting. But there are so many people suffering the same fate around the world. Millions of people are starving under the brutal regime in North Korea. They also ADMIT to having weapons of mass destruction AND they appear to have the missile capabilities to hit our west coast. Why not invade there instead?

Because well because, because, wait I know they have no oil or any other real economic reason for us stop the death march in North Korea.

 

[Ampmonster]

"...Recent Speech Falls Flat..."

thanks major networks! a prisoner with underwear on his head dominates the headlines for a week, but when the Prez is actually on they'd rather show their reality shows.

DO YOU GUYS GET IT YET?

 

[Starscream]

"...Recent Speech Falls Flat..."

thanks major networks! a prisoner with underwear on his head dominates the headlines for a week, but when the Prez is actually on they'd rather show their reality shows.

DO YOU GUYS GET IT YET?

In all fairness, I don't remember any prisoner torture photos pre-empting any reality shows. Besides, the WH didn't ask the major networks to carry the speech.

Still, I think the networks should have carried it, but I don't blame them, I blame the idiot Joe-Six-Packs out there that would rather see bikinis on Fear Factor than the President speak on something as important as the war in Iraq.

 

[Ampmonster]

and what element of society made people like that? the media? maybe?

 

[Starscream]

and what element of society made people like that? the media? maybe?

Good question. I don't know, but I imagine both the media and society at large is involved in a big feedback loop.

The speech was available to everyone, just not on the 3 big networks. Obviously, the big 3 networks would have aired the speech if they thought their audience cared. I would have loved nothing more than to see ratings on all 3 networks drop like a rock during the Presidential address, but that power belongs to the people, and the people don't care.

 

[praying]

and what element of society made people like that? the media? maybe?

Don't blame the media for Ameirca's idiotic taste in television. What happen to personal responsibility?

 

[Ampmonster]

it's all that presented. this type of dumbing takes years of subtle increase.

 

[Ampmonster]

"What happen to personal responsibility?"

lawyers are busy convincing people that it doesnt exist

 

[jameseb]

"What happen to personal responsibility?"

lawyers are busy convincing people that it doesnt exist

Now THAT is laying down the smackdown. Bravo, and so very, very true, if not also very sad.....