Are you sure they aren't over there defending us from an invasion from outer space? Iraq has as much to do with that as they have terrorist attacks on the U.S.

The US looks like a monkey f*cking a football to the rest of the world right now. We went in because of an imminent threat to the US and there was none; regardless of what government entity fed us the info, we were subtly mislead. No WMDs, nothing. Zilch.

We've got more bodybags coming back right now than we did at the same point in vietnam (actually, the first three years) --and our own government is CENSORING photographs of the flag draped coffins being unloaded from the airplanes.

In the geek world one of the greatest hoaxes of all time was the 'millenium' bug--it didn't exist. Sure, there was bad code here and there just like there always is. Billions were made on 'certifying' code as y2k compliant (I still laugh when I hear someone say that) When Jan, 1 2000 came around what did we here?

"The reason nothing happened is because we did such a good job correcting the problem."

Sound familiar? If you truly believe invading afghanistan, iraq or passing any legislation after 9/11 has prevented any terrorist attacks you've got BIG problems that no one in this forum is going to be able to help you resolve.

-Jeff

Victory!

Keep saying it. The more often and the louder the better. Worked for Dubya, why not you?

I was initially opposed to the idea of invading Iraq and for good reason. There may even be a post somewhere with me voicing my opposition, reading something to the effect that we were already streatched to the limit in Afganistan.

Ok so it was piss poor prior planning, like that never happened before?
Look at things a bit more realisticly. IF allowed to "destabilize" the oil exports from the middle east what effect would that have on us and our allies?
I was a bit young but I do remember the oil embargo of the 70's and that was just a "blip" not a total shut off. Should Saddam been allowed to invade Saudi Arabia the chaos would not only have been felt by us but the entire global economy would have been effected. France and Germany MAY have been able to strike a deal to save their fuel hungry asses but we and our allies would be toast!
I'm not claiming the Iraq war was executed with perfect planning but I do maintain that saddam was and still is a real threat to the world at large. If not him then his near fanatical and gortesquely dimented sons would most certianly have taken the fight to even higher levels.
If the Iraqi people form a government that is agreeable to its people then we have done what we set out to do. I'm not syaing that the people of Iraq will be free of corruption and injustices completely but they atleast have a chance to voice their opinions just as we can. Prior to this war the mmear mention of saddam in an improper context would warrent death. Do you honestly feel that this was ok? Should it have been allowed to continue in light of saddams attempts to overpower other countries, enslave the populace and control the global economy?
If you think it's okay then you are not aware of the implications of turning the other cheek to a man like saddam.
Thise flag draped coffins are a symbol of our need for a stable middle east.

All of us are guilty of killing those soldiers with the weapons of our own greed. We need cheap fuel, we need a stable middle east.
Yes we can live with an occasion airplane flying into a building at random but if there is no fuel to fly that airplane then we have even bigger problems. If you cant afford to keep the lighs on in your house and gas in your tank you have a really big problem. Go ahead and think "it wont ever happen" because in 1991 it almost did. By knocking saddam onto the sidelines we have for the mostpart assured ourselves a few more years of relitive freedom to live like the fat cats we are.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-17-2003).]

We don't go in to every crap hole in the world though just because their leaders are idiots.. if we did we'd have to take over the better part of Africa and SE Asia.

You can see what happens when we get drawn into these types of fights were we have no real vested interest. Somalia/Bosnia..
As for those screaming that we should attack N Korea because they have WMD (trying to turn Bush's argument against him) I say why?
It's easier to sit back and starve them out while leveraging MFN status on China to help keep them in check.

If you really want to be able to wash your hands of the middle east then come up with cold fusion or a better alternative fuel source. Then we can walk away and only need to worry about containing them.

And for those that want to btch about my puncuation.. sorry I'm whipping this one out at work and don't have a lot of time to proof read and spell check.

"I have a deep respect for Ed, He brings to light issues that I find deeply compelling and thought provoking. If I got Ed "thinking" (IE on the ropes) it is not a victory.
I actually look faward to his replies and I am a bit disapointed that I have not gotten one yet."

Oh brother, go pinch yourself. I went skydiving yesterday, played basketball last night, worked today, visited my accountant after work, and played basketball again tonight; my life doesn't revolve around PFF or especially your delusion that you have me stumped .

So I hope your looking, "faward" has been worth the wait.

Ok Bill, I’ll answer all of your points, as opposed to most of my opponents who answer mine like a buffet; take what you want and avoid the messy ones. Sure, it’s a form of acquiescence, but it doesn’t surprise me.

“Ed, last time I checked the military was voluntary. No one demanded they join.
What is the military to you? Is it a regimented form of welfare? Sign up and get free stuff, free training, free money for collage, free food?”

No, the point I was clearly making is that the military is sponsored with tax dollars that are collected, or stolen, as the conservatives would say, and redistributed to the military; what differentiates that from welfare given to single mothers? Because you feel it supports America and does so me good? That would be your opinion.

“I believe if you sign up you know full well you may be called to active duty and "fight the good fight", maybe die. but hey that wont happen to me will it Ed.”

Ok, so what does this have to do with anything? I’m criticizing the American political system, not the troops. I’m not saying the troops are whining, I’m saying the politics behind this war suck, and I’m asking how many until we pull the plug; 55k like the last disastrous war?

“Well I guess that theory went out the window for 400 or so soldiers not to mention the ones maimed.”

Again, I’m not speaking or questioning from the perspective of the troops, I’m looking at the directive end.

“What do you want me to do? drive the country and thank each family individually? Screw that! I'll just post my flag out front, hows that sound?”

Like silly symbolism that is akin to the posting of the 10 Commandments in front of a courthouse. I’m not writing about what your duty is with this conflict or with the deceased troops, can you stick to the topic?

“Last time I checked I can "blame" anyone or anything I want to blame. I am "free" to do that Ed. Apparently you are too.”

Ok, and that something to do with ???

“So what is your proposal Ed? We pull out of Iraq, Then what? Will all the problems in the world go away?”

You don’t really read much of what others post, do you. Go back and look at the parts about our intrusions into THEIR country long before this war or the one 12 years ago and you’ll understand. We need to let Israel cash their own checks that they write.

“The muslim will let me go in peace? HA!! don't be a fool, we have to fight because there are those in the world that will not leave US alone.”

I understand that you cannot help but to call people names. If you lived in another country you would be saying that the US won’t leave the rest of the world alone. Why is it that most Americans are so arrogant that we think we have an inherent right to invade who, when, and where we want?

“You want me to be a good christian and turn the other cheak?”

I don’t want you to be any kind of a Christian, nor do I want anyone to interfere with you having the right to practice Christianity. When you write, “turn the other cheak,” do you mean that you want to forcibly spread Christianity against the will of other countries?

“Screw that! mess with me and I'll mess back. I'm not bound by some book written by a bunch of people with sun scorched brains. I'm not that much of a lemming.”

Ok, and who exactly do you think that scares; the Arabs? They don’t scare and will continue this game of ‘kill 3 of ours and we’ll kill 3 of yours’ until we tire of it. Hate and murder breeds hate and murder. If you want our young people to your martyr, well, you have your wish.

“You complain about 400 lives yet you have no solution for MY protection. I want a solution.”

No one really has the perfect answer, as there are no crystal balls, but all we can do is try to get out of their sights. We can also level the nation, but then there’s Korea and China for starters that will have an itchy trigger finger. Again, the UN and most of the rest of the world says we’re wrong; are they wrong and us right?

“There has not been an attack in the U.S. since we started hunting for terrorist leaders, I'm happy about that fact. You may argue that there "may not" have been one anyway but as it stands the fact is undenyable.”

Exactly, no saying what would have happened, but one thing for sure is that the Arab nations were tripping over themselves denying involvement. I think it’s safe to assume that there would be a cooling off period for a while regardless of how we reacted.

“You compare this to Vietnam? LOL ok thats a good one! Sounds like you are a bit paranoid Ed. Your attention span can reach back to the Viernam era but not to September 11th. Sounds like short term memory loss.”

So what does more of your insults have to do with the comparison of Viet Nam to Iraq? Why don’t you refute my assertions instead of your personal attacks (Ad Hominems)? All it proves is that you can’t refute the substance of my assertions so you resort to attacking. I could compare your writing/grammar to Ray’s, but I’m sticking to the issues.

“What was the cost for you to have the "minority" opinion, ever stop and think about that?”

What was the cost? What does that mean?

“You may be a minority but your opinion rings just as loud and clear as mine or anyone elses.”

Is that an inference that I am a racial minority? Either that or there is much ambiguity in your writing. For the record, I’m not a racial minority. Do you mean to write that I may have a minority opinion, but it rings as loud? There’s a difference between calling me a minority, and stating that my opinion is minority.

“Be glad you can express your "minority opinion" because in some other countries you could quite possibly be dead already for such insolent comments and opinions.”

Where, China? Great comparison. Whenever flag-wavers want to increase the stock in America they look for the worst place in the world and draw contrast. Besides, don’t overestimate the First Amendment, as it is a bit of a joke. If you apply for a permit to picket or parade and the local government doesn’t affirm it – tough. The First, by today’s interpretation, states the government control the where and when, but they don’t control the what, so you are still limited to asking if you can express your supposed inalienable rights.

“Let's see the day is almost over and the highway death toll according to Ed is roughly 79, yeah its a guess but I'm sure it's not that far off.”

According to Ed? Hey, you asserted that over 1,000 people die on the highways every day, I corrected you by informing you that it’s about 115; how is that according to me when that is what various traffic bureaus will advertise? Do I need to further disprove your unfounded, random guessing?

“We lost another in Iraq today, if you wish to include the helecopter colision then add 17 more to that.”

OK.

“79 Persuing their freedoms
18 Protecting it.”

Ok, so this war is going to be boiled down to American traffic fatalities vs. American soldiers killed in Iraq? If so, then how many of those 79 traffic fatalities were killed while driving drunk, as many traffic fatalities are? Are they pursuing their freedoms by driving drunk? Try, try, try to stick to the topic.

“I think it is safe to say more people die taking advantage of their freedom than those who die protecting it.”

I don’t know, what is the biggest killer in America, heart disease maybe? So people who die from heart related deaths do so pursuing their freedom? The ones drinking, doing drugs, etc… Can we stick to the topic of asking how many US service people will die until we’ve had enough?

“Wonder how those 197 or so people (family members not including friends) feel about that? Are they going to boycot car manufacturers and protest against the auto industry for allow such carnage to happen at the expence of their loved ones?”

Many will sue. What your doing, Bill, is convoluting the argument that we have wasted too many people over in Iraq, with your apparent argument, too many people are dying on the roads in America, and trying to draw a conclusion based upon an insignificant comparison. We could compare the number of women raped while dating and looking for Mr. Right, versus the women who successfully find Mr. Right and enjoy children from that relationship and draw a comparison about the price paid by the unsuccessful ones and that it is/isn’t worth the price paid.

“Your arguement has the same substance. My "laze faire attitude" includes the carnage on US highways, thats why I wear a seatbelt and try to anticipate what is going to happen while I drive my car.”

Being/avoiding poor drivers and the corrupt politics behind wars are apples/oranges. To draw a brief analogy is tolerable, but to act as if there is some causal connection between American driving deaths and American casualties of the Iraq war is to misdirect the entire scope of anything that is rational.

“If you can't look down the road and see what could happen then I sugguest you stay in your nice safe home and hope the "muslim extriemist" passes by your door and doesn't see you cowering while he pumps anthrax into the air.”

They’re out there Bill, . They’re coming to get you, you should not have posted a picture of your house; they can identify it. An to place an American flag out front is to make yourself a target .

“418 people have given up their lives so far to prevent it from happening. I don't take that very lightly, I appriciate their sacrefices.”

Most of which are naïve kids that don’t understand what is actually going on. Even though these kids are great people for serving, they haven’t stopped anything from happening over here. I imagine they have stopped some of the suffering and murder in Iraq, but I would rather have our 418 back and let them deal with their own.

“How do those 418 families feel right now? I'd imagine not all that good. How would they feel if I "unplugged" them from all the benifits of oil?
Lets see
No Gas for the car
No plastics of any kind.
No food unless they grow it.
(hey it takes energy to can food and run the combines)
No electricity
No water unless the manually pump it.
No sewage treatment.
No garbage collection
No bandaids for the occasional scratch while harvesting
No Heat in the winter save wood or bodies they can burn.
No air conditioning in the summer.
No medicines (they require energy to produce and transport)
NOTHING!”

More mitigation: 418 families is light. Remember, people divorce and where there was 1 family there will be 2. Easily 1,200 to 2,000+ people directly affected by these 418 deaths. Wait a minute, from a capitalist country that supposedly believes in fair competition in the market, how can we be over there to control a market; doesn’t that go against everything American? How could we do it without their oil? We could use our own, we could buy from Venezuela and other countries selling it, and we could negotiate with the Arabs. Don’t act as if it’s Arab oil or no oil.

“No electricity”

Tell me you’re joking. Electricity is produced through use of dams, windmills, or nuclear (nukular if you’re Bush); how is it that oil is tied to electricity?

“So how do I feel about them feeling pissed because Bush has a secret adjenda and their loved one died needlessly?
LOL!!!! ROFLMAO!!!! BAGLMAO!!!!
Freedom has it's price.”

You are rolling on the floor, laughing your ass off at the families of the dead service people if they dislike Bush for sending the troops over? You are sick, Bill.

Now, Bill, you avoided several points/questions of mine; would you like to address them since I supposed was stumped?

“Whatever this war is comparable to, how many more young GI's need to die for this cause?”

“Speaking of that, a way that Viet Nam is comparable is that LBJ supposedly kept the war going to support his corporate buddies at the expense of the lives of GI's, and Bushy has primarily his contributors doing the rebuilding work over there. It's another case of young lives for corporate greed; I've seen this movie before.”

“Well, what would have happened if we did/didn't do X, Y, or Z is pure speculation on both of our parts. To support my position I would ask how many attacks from militant Arabs there were before 1948. If we never engaged Israel would we be strangers to that region?”

“Now, to look at the opposite side of the coin we need to understand why the Arabs/Muslims are attacking us in the US since the early 90's. Are they branching out from screwing with Europe, or are they sick of our intrusions?”

“No one ever addresses this point: Sweden has freedom and stays neutral, so is it necessary to be warmongers to obtain security, especially when we are currently not secure? It seems the more militant we get, the less safe and secure we are.”

“The rich have been exploiting young people for centuries, the sad event after Viet Nam is that they forgot to dub the 55,000 dead and all the live Viet Nam GI's as hero's until 20 years later. Who was it that did that? Oh yea, that draft-dodger, as well as he made some reparations and an apology for Japanese-American internment. These wars are generally (WWII excepted) over other than necessity; usually politics or religion.”

“There ya go, blame it on, "The times" and ignore our intrusions into their religious protocol, which is very sacred to them.

“The price...hmmm, how about saying screw Jebus, his birthplace, and the merry little band of freaks that legislate worldwide war as a gesture of worship and sacrifice to enjoy freedom and peace?”

“I have a better one, how about Scandinavian conflict philosophy. How many wars has Sweden been engaged in? How much of their GNP do they redistribute to fund military actions? Oh, so redistribution works for the military and their corporate contractors too, huh? Welfare mongers.”

Se if you can actually address all points of my post before you go off and assume you’ve stumped me.

[This message has been edited by I'm Back (edited 11-18-2003).]

The rest of the world does NOT think we are wrong. That is apparently media propoganda that you listened to. The vote in the U.N. was vastly in favor of the U.S. plan. There were some powerful and vocal opponents that apparently you are mistaking for a majority.

A second major fallacy here is to compare this to Viet Nam. I can see again that if you just want to be emotional and not think things through, one could draw that comparison. There is NO WAY this country is going to allow this to turn into another Viet Nam. This country does not have the attention span for that, much less the will. So for anyone even to be worrying about it reflects emotion over intellectual thought.

Regarding this Sweden fascination. Or you could pick Switzerland. They are the people who can remain neutral because they have bigger buddies they can hang out with who do the protecting and fighting. Their being picked on has nothing to do with their neutrality. It has everything to do about hiding behind someone else.

Need a recent example? Did their neutrality keep them from being attacked in WWII? No.

You can reject or deny what you want, the fact is you cannot drive your car and run the microwave with the power of thought alone.
There are alternatives but they are much more expencive and not as efficient. You may wish to deny your dependance on oil but the fact is everything you see and touch is created by and or is a product of oil.

I know you have a computer, all the plastic parts were created from.... oil. The electricity used to run the press that stamped the case, the electricity used to operate the robotics that soldered the components onto the motherboard. The list can go on and on and it all comes back to the simple basic product that is reqired to make it all happen.... OIL. Last I checked there were very few businesses running 100% "oil" free.

So if you think I generalized my statement and you wish to call my assessment "intellectual laziness" I have no problem with that. No more than I would an alcoholic who refuses to belive he is an alcoholic.

Imagine if the cost of oil rose 40% in a few months, the effect would be devastating on our economy. Everything from transportation to agroculture would be affected, prices would skyrocket, business would be forced to close, schools would overrun their budgets just keeping the lighs on let alone heat themselves.

IMAGINE if you will the price of gasoline were to rise 2 bucks a gallon over the next year. there would be a wholesale sellout in the SUV market! I've seen it already in that last two years, the papers are riddeled with SUV's for sale because they are so expensive to operate. Who wants to put 40 dollars in the tank every few days?

The cost to transport goods would rise, the goods themselves would get more expensive to manufacture, the people that manufature them would require more money to heat their homes, get to work, go shopping. The "rippel effect" is enormous!

Just think about it, then call me crazy.

Preserve?

You mean CREATE...right?

LOL!

The total percentage of all theese does not come close to the amount produced by "oil" and natural gas.

Coal ranks #1 followed by Natural gas, CRUDE OIL is third but not by much.

We don't have than many years of natural resources left to burn.
We had better get on the stick and start coming up with cars and trucks that run on water!

Britain was our greatest ally yes but latest polls tell us that over 50% population now believe Blair was wrong in backing Bush.

Bush failed to raise any real donations. Some nations willing to make sure this doesnt become a civil war in Iraq have pledged some support but are still at odds w/ the U.S. aggression. Language used in post 1441 resolution allows for a healing & back to the table attitude. Europe has a large interest in Iraq oilfields.

Im concerned about what our Foreign Relation Council is planning at this moment for Irans nuclear plant. Both the Israelis and U.S. are backing another pre-emption on this facility which could actually bring about a larger war.

This in no way means that the US planned out this operation and ensured the backing of other nations prior to the invasion, As I stated before "piss poor prior planning".

There are lots of people in this country who have been working and pushing on getting an energy plan that reduces dependence on foreign oil. There are lots of people who have tried to live a more energy efficient life. And there are lots of people who would eat the cost of higher energy to be less dependent on foreign oil.

They are not "oil-coholics".

I understand all what is made with oil, and all the things it is used in. I also know how the country can use less of it. I PERSONALLY know how to do it with minimizing the effect on my quality of life.

I'm not calling you crazy. I said lazy.

And it is getting so tiresome. When we want the war to be about oil, it's oil. Then it's about mistreating arabs. Then it's about favoring Israel. Then it's about converting muslims to christianity. Then it's about Bush trying to deflect from a bad economy. Then's it's about Bush trying to get revenge for his dad. Then it's about Bush and his defense cronies getting rich. Then it is just that the U.S. is imperialistic by nature and can't help itself.

OK, which is it? Because I have said the same thing the whole time: just one part of a total plan to reduce terrorism.

And G-Nasty, not even a HANDFUL of nations tried to STOP the U.S. And those were found to have financial reasons to try to stop us.

That said, I am all for getting out. I was never one of the people who said to go in for humanitarian reasons. Just stay there long enough to get a government in that isn't likely to sponsor terror and openly reject the U.S., and then get out.

Of course, then when we get out relatively soon, and a bad government takes over, I will look forward to the criticisms of Bush for rushing out too soon. Because as has been proven by the repetitive flip-flopping, and criticizing both ends, their is minimal objectivity and maximal inconsistency going on.

P.S. I don't drive an SUV.

This war is about the "stabilization" of the middle east. IE "resources".

oxymoron follows
There are people in our government that know our fossile fuel resources are limited. Some speculations range from as little as 30 years to as much as 60 years.

Lets say that I held 23% of the worlds oil, the middle east holds x% and russia holds x%, Me being semi smart would like to use up everyone elses oil first. In the meantime I'll do research and development on "alternative" fuels and such to wane my populace off "fossile fules".

40 years later I now have 90% of the worlds oil. Since I'm not as "dependant" on it I can make a tidy proffit while other countries scramble for alternatives. Maybe I can even.......... sell it to them but only if they are nice.

The critical parts in this "therory" are.

1. Maintain a stable mddle east (there are other benifits to this too) so I can both use and drain the resources.
IT WILL ALLOW ME TIME TO
2. come up with an alternative energy before all the oil runs out.

This war is not about the here and now, it's about the future.

So in essence Ed is right.

Power is everything, we have it and we want to keep it, Now and later on down the road.

How do you explain this to your own public without tipping your hand to those that have what you want to........ use?

In any case WE DEPEND HEAVILY ON OIL! .......for now.
In 60 years the middle east won't mean a thing.

OH and if you drive anything that uses fossil fuel (either generated from or directly used) SUV or not, it does not matter. You are dependant on oil or oil based products my lobal friend.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-18-2003).]

This is a lie. I'm surprised to see that you're still repeating it.

-Jeff

Clinton did attempt to stabilize the middle east. It didn't last very long but he gets an E for effort.

Thing that kills me is he signed in NAFTA. I didn't think it was a good idea to begin with. Now with forgin corporations pulling out of the US in protest (or reducing production) and combined with NAFTA the US economy is suffering worse than expected.

In a article I was reading the other day it takes about 10 years for a new government to really get going. This was based on Japan after WWII.

I agree with most of what you said. I don't think oil is the only reason we're there, it is an important factor though. I don't think most people realize exactly how dependent our way of life is on oil. It will take many years to wean ourselves off of it. We don't have nearly enough domestic oil to get us through the transition. It's not about "stealing" oil for oil company profits, it's about avoiding gas rationing stamps, mandatory destruction of older cars, etc... I honestly believe the intention is to have a win-win situation - we get our oil, they get a better life. Whether or not that works out remains to be seen.

I understand the comparison to traffic deaths too. We could virtually eliminate traffic deaths by instituting a strictly enforced nationwide 25 MPH speed limit. We could also regulate cars to have only 20HP or so (why would you need any more) and speed limiters. This would have the added benefit of drastically reduced oil consumption. As a society we have decided we would rather sacrifice a few thousand people a year.

Unless someone stopped by PFF to find out how to convert their Fiero to electric so they could plug it into the solar array on their roof (that has been done BTW), I think we're all contributing to the situation... it's only a question of degree.

John Stricker

JeffMN, I listed Clinton's years of neglect in a list of things different people might point to. I'm not DIRECTLY relating IRAQ to Clinton's administration. Just his neglect in taking anti-terror measures, responding to attacks, castrating the intelligence community, etc.

Or Al Gore. You DID vote for him...right?

I don't think it's about just Iraq's oil. It's about stabilizing the supply from the whole area for the next 20 years or so. We don't have enough proven reserves to make it without very drastic changes. We could bank on "undiscovered reserves" but that seems pretty risky.

BTW, I just love the people who say what a horrible plan we had going in and how botched it is. Like their is some manual:

"how to plan taking an out an evil government, re-establishing a new government, and rebuilding a basic infrastructure in 3 easy steps"

or:

"Country take-over and government re-establishment for dummies". (and yes, we ALL know how dumb Bush is already. That has been SO well established by you people--well, not with any fact or example, but just by you repeating it so often and that must make it true).

If some of you can summon enough attention span for a minute, you might remember that the generals in the initial invasion had a plan, and then had to substantially change it on the fly as it went on because it was going so well.

What, do you people think you can just have this magical plan for country rebuilding that just happens right along, and everything goes perfectly? And if there are snags, and difficulties, oh, well, we just have NO CLUE what we are doing?

This is a violent country with MANY EVIL PEOPLE, who aren't just anti-american people, they are just EVIL PEOPLE.

How many American deaths until we're done? I don't know. Less than 2,000. Likely less than 1,000. Which, as I stated before, while tragic, is WAY less than what people originally estimated for just the WAR part.

The correct term is EVILDOER
(must use deep southern presidential accent to pronounce)

The irony in all this is that a nuclear plant just popped up in Iran.

If we move some pawns to pre-empt it like we did saddams regime, the whole world will be against us. I dont think Isreal has the balls or would like to see the backlash if they where to attempt this hence our Colin Powell is already making rounds on letting everyone know that the U.S. will do yet another pre-emption in the face of the IAEA inspectors and security council.

This would be an aggression that would not stand and a larger war could result.

Gore was right when he said this president and his foreign policy advisors have failed to make America safer-it has in fact made us more a viable target.

Plus, appeasement is ALWAYS a better course than taking action. Look how well it worked when Clinton was in the White House. Gore got to witness it first hand.

What a doofus. "VIABLE TARGET"!! You mean like the Cole? The barracks? WTC? Oh, yeah. We are just SUCH a more viable target NOW. Like we weren't before. Figure it out, Al.

So we are an equally viable target then and now. How many attacks have we had since 9/11? Just in Iraq. But at least we are armed there, and as prepared as can be.

And suppose we took out the nuclear plant in Iran. I'm not saying I'm for it. But "this would be an aggression that would not stand". How do you know that? How do you know Iran would have the guts to strike back? Well, they would start terrorism. Uh, they have already been heavily involved in it. Too late to start-already doing it.

The question is more if you would have the guts to support it. I think we already know the answer to that.

I thought it meant easy to get to. Which the heartland is(yes I beleive we will have some serious repercussions from these invasions in the form of terrorism)

It doesnt mean that Iranians have weapons grade material. Yes they want it. Now why would they want it?

Retaliation or protection?

Thats the question. They know if they are found in non compliance that the U.S. will attack. Right now, Germany, France and Russia say they arent breaking any proliferation mandates.

I'd like to point out that dubbyas adopted foreign policy (although it might be making insiders rich) has a damning consequence should we decide to go it alone and buck the U.N.

China or the Soviets ALONG w/ ALL arab inc. India/ Pakistan nations will not cow tow this time 'round.

Not unless Colin dishes out some serious taxpayer money

Dont forget what the U.S. did w/ the shah of Iran-thats bloodmoney

[This message has been edited by G-Nasty (edited 11-19-2003).]

And I'm sorry if I led you to believe I was knocking the point just on semantics with the viable. That's not what I meant. I was trying to make the point that the terrorists wanted to attack us just as much before Afghanistan and Iraq as since.

Just a reminder Ed,
Most all of the Democrats that are in leadership position saw the danger until an election got in the way of national security.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Cut and run, and then scrape and bow is the liberal answer to terrorism.

You can see to which group of people it is just talk, and to which group of people it is talk, action, and resolve.

American deaths in iraq in the last few MONTHS! 418+

American deaths on the US highways in a few DAYS! 400+

Ed?
Care to comment or should I upload a cyber shoulder and a crying towl?

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-20-2003).]

So I write my original post to the thread, many people respond, especially 84Bill. Great! But then Bill starts posting things like, “Boot to the top. It's not often I get Ed on the ropes.” And, “If I got Ed "thinking" (IE on the ropes) it is not a victory. I actually look faward to his replies and I am a bit disapointed that I have not gotten one yet.”

So then I reply by writing, “Oh brother, go pinch yourself. I went skydiving yesterday, played basketball last night, worked today, visited my accountant after work, and played basketball again tonight; my life doesn't revolve around PFF or especially your delusion that you have me stumped . And then I proceed to answer all of his questions, thoughts, and comments in a post that took me 1 ½ hours to compose. So then Bill replies by answering all of my questions, thoughts, and comments, right? No, to avoid that he writes: “You are right Ed.” And then proceeds to counter my opinions in later posts with things like this:

“I would like to digress. Since my first post back on the 16th (I'll use a conservative figure) about death and how Edwardos cries fell on my def ears.
American deaths in iraq in the last few MONTHS! 418+
American deaths on the US highways in a few DAYS! 400+
Ed?
Care to comment or should I upload a cyber shoulder and a crying towl?”

Care to comment? I commented and you patronized me with by telling me I’m right. Either that or you actually think I’m right, which makes you a little out to lunch. Truth is that you had the choice of answering the questions I posted or ducking and running, and you chose the latter. Bill, quit running from what you asked for; my opinions, and answer them and we can get on with the thread. See, Bill, in a conversation, there is a sense of mutuality and you have failed to answer my questions after I answer yours. Pony up or bow out.

I just want a simple answer to the question I posed.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT 400+ PEOPLE THAT HAVE DIED OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS ON US HIGHWAYS?

You seem unconcerned, uncaring and "Your laze faire attitude about 400+ dead citizens is alarming"

It would seem to me that death is only an issue when it serves your (or anyones) spacific purpose, to bring attention to a precieved "injustice." I see you, like many other lemmings follow the media and not reality. You allude to death in war as a horrable waste of life but death is death Ed.

You exaggerate death in a war but you then accuse me of mitigating it, yet you mitigate the hundreds that have died in the last few days in favor of an equal amount that died in WAR (rather an attempt to stabilize the middle east so you can drive your CAR to work and not pay through then nose fo gas) over the last 7 months!

Like I said Ed maybe you should retire and "cry" because you are to old and outdated to be an effictive "voice" on such issues.

The situation in Iraq is far to important for our future to ignore, even if you refuse to see it and apparently you do. So go ahead and hop on the bandwagon. Enjoy it while it lasts because some day it will be out of gas because of your ignorance.

Viet Nam LOL now that is a laugh! there is NO COMPARISON old timer. We had some "paranoid" people in charge of this country back then. Oh and BTW Communism failed, terrorism is by far a greater threat to life liberty and the persuit of happyness than communism ever was.

And I don't recall the US FORCING (drafting) people into military service to "subjugate all Arabs/Muslims"

IF that does happen, move over Ed, I'll be right next to you in protest.
Until then Edward I'll fight for cheap gasoline, heating oil and soda bottles and every other modern convience made of plastic.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-21-2003).]