someone rather wise once said that "government exists by the consent of the governed".
I wonder which government he was referring to. Saddam Huessein's? It is apparent from the Michael Moore's, the Howard Dean's and the John Kerry's of this world that they would still rather have Saddam in power because it was a mistake for us to go into Iraq. So the question still is "Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam?" Liberals won't answer that question.
I bet Gorbachev knew as soon as the Soviets pulled out of Romania what would happen.
The former Yugoslavia, too.
They'd be at each others' throats.
I have a good friend who lived two years in Kiev. In talking about the breakaway republics she says she's still amazed at how screwed up most of those places still are after going on 20 years now.
So the question still is "Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam?"
i'll answer it. and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue if they're better off, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
I wonder which government he was referring to. Saddam Huessein's?
why does it matter which government he's referring to? its a universal statement. in america, we have the potential for a coup every two years. we call them elections. when the government no longer has the consent of the governed, the government gets voted out, and someone else gets voted in. its a peaceful event. in some cases, as happened in this country some 230 years ago, it takes much blood, sweat, and tears to cause that change to happen. the colonists withdrew their consent of the existence of the then-current government and created their own. in fact, that government didn't work right, so they again created yet another one in 1789, and its lasted ever since (with 27 or so changes in detail of course).
so really, it doesn't matter if its november 2004 in america, july 1776 in the colonies, or any point in time in iraq. the governments in those areas exist solely by the consent of those governed.
So the question still is "Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam?"
i'll answer it. and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue if they're better off, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
I think you know the answer but again being the typical liberal that you are you refuse to acknowledge it. They are better off because the have hope and a chance to make a citizen friendly government.
I wonder which government he was referring to. Saddam Huessein's?
why does it matter which government he's referring to? Because it certainly DID NOT apply to Saddam's government. At least they have a chance now to put in a government by the people.  its a universal statement. in america, we have the potential for a coup every two years. That isn't what is meant by coup.we call them elections. You need a dictionary.
so really, it doesn't matter if its november 2004 in america, july 1776 in the colonies, or any point in time in iraq. the governments in those areas exist solely by the consent of those governed.Do you have any clue what you are talking about? I don't and I doubt anyone else does.
i'll answer it. and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue if they're better off, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
Does one have to be there to generalize that people are better off without Saddam and his sons ? Have you read much about what this guy had done and was doing ? Did we need to be there to determine that Yugoslavia was better off without Milosevic? Europe - Hitler? Africa without Emin ?(sp) Cambodia without Pol Pot? I don't think in this case either that one has to go spend a weekend in Baghdad to arrive at a reasonable generalization that the people are better off in general. Judjing from the guys I've talked to that have been there and some back again, the transformation has been amazing in just a year. No, it's not perfect. But one need not be an optimist to admit that in general things are better for the people. It's mind boggling that people with knowledge of his attrocities can assume otherwise.
and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue ......, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
This is typical response for liberals that do not want to answer a question.
why does it matter which government he's referring to? Because it certainly DID NOT apply to Saddam's government. At least they have a chance now to put in a government by the people. Â
it certainly did apply to saddam's government, as it applies anywhere. they've always had a chance to put in a government by the people. there was never enough support among the people for it. you mean to tell me that if everyone in iraq had fought to overthrow saddam's regime, that saddam would still be in power? he might, but there'd be no one left to have any power over.
its a universal statement. in america, we have the potential for a coup every two years. That isn't what is meant by coup.
you know what i mean, jethro. maybe i should have put quotes around coup, so that simple minds such as yours could have picked up said meaning.
we call them elections. You need a dictionary.
you need a brain. what's your point?
so really, it doesn't matter if its november 2004 in america, july 1776 in the colonies, or any point in time in iraq. the governments in those areas exist solely by the consent of those governed.Do you have any clue what you are talking about? I don't and I doubt anyone else does.
yes, i do have a clue what i'm talking about. in america, in july of 1776, a group of people signed a document that we call the declaration of independence. there was a war, and the 13 british colonies gained independence from britain. see jethro, the point was that the consent that the governed gave the government of the time was withdrawn. now, let's go back to 1988. george h.w. bush received consent by the voters of this country to govern. in 1992, said consent was withdrawn. in america, this process happens peacefully. in 1989, said consent was withdrawn from the dictator of romania. violently. see what i'm saying? the only reason saddam was in power is because there weren't enough people in iraq who thought it was worth dying for to get him out.
Does one have to be there to generalize that people are better off without Saddam and his sons ? Have you read much about what this guy had done and was doing ? Did we need to be there to determine that Yugoslavia was better off without Milosevic? Europe - Hitler? Africa without Emin ?(sp) Cambodia without Pol Pot? I don't think in this case either that one has to go spend a weekend in Baghdad to arrive at a reasonable generalization that the people are better off in general. Judjing from the guys I've talked to that have been there and some back again, the transformation has been amazing in just a year. No, it's not perfect. But one need not be an optimist to admit that in general things are better for the people. It's mind boggling that people with knowledge of his attrocities can assume otherwise.
i'm sure that a lot of iraqi citizens would agree that they're better off now than they were under saddam. but we've all seen the pictures that have come back from iraq of people who aren't better off. iraqis are still getting killed. ok so its a stray bullet that hits them instead of an intentional firing squad. there's not really a whole lot of difference to the family that such a person left behind.
Last year at this time, the media were in full scandal mode over 16 words that President Bush had spoken nearly six months earlier. Â Â Â Â "The British government has learned," Bush had said in his State of the Union address in January, "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
it certainly did apply to saddam's government, as it applies anywhere. If you believe that you are even dumber than I have ever imgained.they've always had a chance to put in a government by the people. Really? What planet are you from? It has a resemblance to fold's.  there was never enough support among the people for it. You believe that?
yes, i do have a clue what i'm talking about. in america, in july of 1776, a group of people signed a document that we call the declaration of independence. there was a war, and the 13 british colonies gained independence from britain.Let's see there was an ocean that seperated America from England.
see jethro, the point was that the consent that the governed gave the government of the time was withdrawn. now, let's go back to 1988. george h.w. bush received consent by the voters of this country to govern. in 1992, said consent was withdrawn. in america, this process happens peacefully. in 1989, said consent was withdrawn from the dictator of romania. violently. see what i'm saying? the only reason saddam was in power is because there weren't enough people in iraq who thought it was worth dying for to get him out.
You don't believe that do you? You are saying Saddam's was a legitimate government. I hope you will rethink this because it is utterly wrong.
But if, as president, Kerry would abandon support for Turkey in order to avoid friction with Europe, he should say why. And if he would risk that friction on Turkey's behalf, he must acknowledge, to Bush's benefit, that international harmony is not the highest aim of foreign policy.
i'm sure that a lot of iraqi citizens would agree that they're better off now than they were under saddam.
Then I don't understand how people can say they aren't sure if Iraq is better off without Saddam. Yes there's problems but I don't think making a generalization that things are better off would be out of line.
Opinions like that have been around a long time. The internet and it's proliferation have made it more possible to give it meerly a louder voice. Al Jazerra has done more damage by their eeronious reporting than a decade of decsions by anyone in Washignton.
You been following their coverage? I really haven't besides what I hear off and on. I go to the site once in awhile. Probably more later, as I'm going to the Middle East in December.
i'll answer it. and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue if they're better off, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
no one know for sure...except I'd wager that the 12.000 or so civilian Iraqi that have been killed aren't better off.
The 12,000 or more that Saddam would have killed and the thousands more he would have tortured are better off. But it is clear, crabs, that you don't believe in fighting for freedom and that you think having Saddam in power was a good thing.
There are two approaches to terrorists. One is to fight them with every weapon you can -- the military, intelligence services, interdiction of money flows, diplomacy. That is what George W. Bush is doing against the Islamist terrorists who struck Sept. 11. The other way is appeasement. Give the terrorists some of what they want, and hope that they will stop being terrorists any more. That was the approach Bill Clinton took in the 1990s to terrorists in Colombia, Israel and Northern Ireland.
the military, intelligence services, interdiction of money flows, diplomacy. That is what George W. Bush is doing against the Islamist terrorists who struck Sept. 11. The other way is appeasement.
the military isn't a very effective detterant to terrorism. Intel is fine, but Bush's seems to be non-existent, one of the flows of money comes from Bush's business partners in Saudi Arabia (another is the continuation of the "war" on drugs)...and diplomacy? You mention diplomacy and Bush in the same breath? Too funny.
The other way is appeasement. Give the terrorists some of what they want, and hope that they will stop being terrorists any more. That was the approach Bill Clinton took in the 1990s to terrorists in Colombia, Israel and Northern Ireland.
so bodine, you want to explain the difference between diplomacy and appeasement to everyone here? Or would you rather explain how Bush should send the marines in to level Dublin and Jeruselum?
the military isn't a very effective detterant to terrorism. There is NO better deterrent. Intel is fine, but Bush's seems to be non-existent, one of the flows of money comes from Bush's business partners in Saudi Arabia (another is the continuation of the "war" on drugs)...and diplomacy? You mention diplomacy and Bush in the same breath? Too funny. You can't deal with people that had a financial interest in the status quo of Iraq. You do know who had those interests don't you? There was every reason to go into Iraq. The evidence seems to be WMD were shipped out of Iraq while Bush had to deal with the UN. Saddam tortured and killed his own people. He supported terrorists financially. He let them train in Iraq and he promised them safe haven. That we ended the mob deal called the food for oil program is simply icing on the cake.
so bodine, you want to explain the difference between diplomacy and appeasement to everyone here? Or would you rather explain how Bush should send the marines in to level Dublin and Jeruselum? Why should he send anyone in to those places? Let Britain and Israel handle those problems and don't give the enemy an inch.Â
You can't deal with people that had a financial interest in the status quo of Iraq. You do know who had those interests don't you?ÂÂ
let's talk about the financial interests in what is happening over there.
yes...follow the money.
go ahead.
The Saudi's had a financial interest in seeing a pipeline through Afghanistan...so did Bush and Cheney's other buddies. They also have a financial interest in control of Iraq, certainly.
let's talk about the financial interests in what is happening over there. You have no clue, crabs.
The Saudi's had a financial interest in seeing a pipeline through Afghanistan...so did Bush and Cheney's other buddies. They also have a financial interest in control of Iraq, certainly. Believe all the conspiracy theories you want, crabs. Each time you write such nonsense you bolster the opinion that you zero credibility.
you don't even understand the nature of the problem here. I understand the problem much better than you ever will. Becuase I don't buy into lies like you do.
In comments made during a meeting with visiting Singaporean Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong,Khamenei said: "We seriously suspect the agents of the Americans and Israelis in conducting such horrendous terrorist acts and cannot believe the people who kidnap Philippines nationals, for instance, or behead U.S. nationals are Muslims."
I believe that the rest of the world's opinion of us is quite low at this point, yes.
why? Do you believe that the entire world thinks we are this swell country who do nothing but good things throughout the world? Is that what you believe?
okay, then explain how military might and actions are effective against terrorism.
In the case of Iraq and the overthrow of the Baathist, the safe haven that they had there is no more. The weapons that Saddam possessed and was working towards will not end up in the terrorists hands. The money he was getting from the oil for food scam will not end up in the car bombers hands. Etc.
TERRORISM:Â Why al Qaeda is Fleeing Iraq
July 12, 2004: Al Qaeda operations in Iraq have encountered unexpected problems. Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al Qaeda's suicide bombing campaign. Religious leaders, which al Qaeda expects to get support from, have been openly denouncing these bombings. Iraqis, aware that they are more likely, than American soldiers, to be victims of these attacks, are providing more information on where the al Qaeda members are hiding out. Most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and easy for Iraqis to detect. As a result of this, many of the al Qaeda men have moved back to Fallujah, which has become a terrorist sanctuary. The interim government is trying to convince the tribal and religious leaders of Fallujah to back a military operation in the city to clear out the various al Qaeda, criminal and Baath Party gangs. But the gangs of Fallujah are quick to threaten any local leader that shows signs of supporting the government. While the Fallujah leadership is intimidated, many residents of Fallujah are not, and are providing information to the coalition, which has led to attacks, with smart bombs or coalition and Iraqi troops, on buildings used by al Qaeda, or other gangs, as headquarters. link
July 12, 2004: Al Qaeda operations in Iraq have encountered unexpected problems. Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al Qaeda's suicide bombing campaign. Religious leaders, which al Qaeda expects to get support from, have been openly denouncing these bombings. Iraqis, aware that they are more likely, than American soldiers, to be victims of these attacks, are providing more information on where the al Qaeda members are hiding out. Most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and easy for Iraqis to detect. As a result of this, many of the al Qaeda men have moved back to Fallujah, which has become a terrorist sanctuary. The interim government is trying to convince the tribal and religious leaders of Fallujah to back a military operation in the city to clear out the various al Qaeda, criminal and Baath Party gangs. But the gangs of Fallujah are quick to threaten any local leader that shows signs of supporting the government. While the Fallujah leadership is intimidated, many residents of Fallujah are not, and are providing information to the coalition, which has led to attacks, with smart bombs or coalition and Iraqi troops, on buildings used by al Qaeda, or other gangs, as headquarters.
looks like the terrorist problem is solved! hooray!
I believe also the Spartans were also vastly outnumbered and thus slaughtered. The King may have been wise to give them up and fight when they had a better advantage. But I'm sure those were brutal times when that sort of thing wasn't considered an option.
I think bodine thinks the military is the best tool for terrorism ANDdiplomacy
Diplomacy won't get you very far unless you have the military to back it up. And the military is killing off terrorists and that will lead to ultimate victory. The only solution you offer is give them everything they want. That is not the answer.
John Kerry is claiming that George W. Bush has the wrong "values" because he went to war when "he didn't have to." Fair enough, for an election year. But it seems to me that Bush could turn that around on Kerry. I think President Bush can claim the right values precisely because he had the courage to do the right thing in the long run, even if it was the risky thing in the short run. Kerry values stability and alliances for their own sake, which is another way of saying he values popularity over principles. If Iraq becomes the engine of a prosperous and democratizing Middle East in 20 years, who in the next generation won't be grateful for the values of this generation?
1 day after all our troops come home, Iraq will begin it's very-quick return to the middle ages, and Democracy will be forgotten, the killings and treachery of racism will begin again, and tens of thousands of them will die for nothing all over again, ad infinitum...AND, they will blame US for it.
someone rather wise once said that "government exists by the consent of the governed".
I wonder which government he was referring to. Saddam Huessein's? It is apparent from the Michael Moore's, the Howard Dean's and the John Kerry's of this world that they would still rather have Saddam in power because it was a mistake for us to go into Iraq. So the question still is "Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam?" Liberals won't answer that question.
Can you name a country that successfully revolted from a dictator without some sort of outsideinfluence?
romania. 1989.
The Soviet's stood by and let it happen instead of rushing in, as was their history, and rushing it.
romania. 1989.
Ok, you got me on that one. Kinda.
The Russians allowed it.
But I wouldn't consider Romania better off or less corrupt today than in 1989. Of course I don't live there so I can't say.Â
I do know the EU won't allow them to join though.
doesn't matter...whatever it is, the phrase still holds true.
Look in the mirror, Crabby.
I bet Gorbachev knew as soon as the Soviets pulled out of Romania what would happen.
The former Yugoslavia, too.
They'd be at each others' throats.
I have a good friend who lived two years in Kiev. In talking about the breakaway republics she says she's still amazed at how screwed up most of those places still are after going on 20 years now.
So the question still is "Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam?"
i'll answer it. and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue if they're better off, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
I wonder which government he was referring to. Saddam Huessein's?
why does it matter which government he's referring to? its a universal statement. in america, we have the potential for a coup every two years. we call them elections. when the government no longer has the consent of the governed, the government gets voted out, and someone else gets voted in. its a peaceful event. in some cases, as happened in this country some 230 years ago, it takes much blood, sweat, and tears to cause that change to happen. the colonists withdrew their consent of the existence of the then-current government and created their own. in fact, that government didn't work right, so they again created yet another one in 1789, and its lasted ever since (with 27 or so changes in detail of course).
so really, it doesn't matter if its november 2004 in america, july 1776 in the colonies, or any point in time in iraq. the governments in those areas exist solely by the consent of those governed.
So the question still is "Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam?"
i'll answer it. and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue if they're better off, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
I think you know the answer but again being the typical liberal that you are you refuse to acknowledge it. They are better off because the have hope and a chance to make a citizen friendly government.
I wonder which government he was referring to. Saddam Huessein's?
why does it matter which government he's referring to? Because it certainly DID NOT apply to Saddam's government. At least they have a chance now to put in a government by the people.  its a universal statement. in america, we have the potential for a coup every two years. That isn't what is meant by coup.we call them elections. You need a dictionary.
so really, it doesn't matter if its november 2004 in america, july 1776 in the colonies, or any point in time in iraq. the governments in those areas exist solely by the consent of those governed.Do you have any clue what you are talking about? I don't and I doubt anyone else does.
Ares, How goes it. Long time no see :)
i'll answer it. and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue if they're better off, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
Does one have to be there to generalize that people are better off without Saddam and his sons ? Have you read much about what this guy had done and was doing ? Did we need to be there to determine that Yugoslavia was better off without Milosevic? Europe - Hitler? Africa without Emin ?(sp) Cambodia without Pol Pot? I don't think in this case either that one has to go spend a weekend in Baghdad to arrive at a reasonable generalization that the people are better off in general. Judjing from the guys I've talked to that have been there and some back again, the transformation has been amazing in just a year. No, it's not perfect. But one need not be an optimist to admit that in general things are better for the people. It's mind boggling that people with knowledge of his attrocities can assume otherwise.
and the answer is that i don't have the first goddamn clue ......, for the very same reason you don't have a clue: i've not been there, and neither have you.
This is typical response for liberals that do not want to answer a question.
why does it matter which government he's referring to? Because it certainly DID NOT apply to Saddam's government. At least they have a chance now to put in a government by the people. Â
it certainly did apply to saddam's government, as it applies anywhere. they've always had a chance to put in a government by the people. there was never enough support among the people for it. you mean to tell me that if everyone in iraq had fought to overthrow saddam's regime, that saddam would still be in power? he might, but there'd be no one left to have any power over.
its a universal statement. in america, we have the potential for a coup every two years. That isn't what is meant by coup.
you know what i mean, jethro. maybe i should have put quotes around coup, so that simple minds such as yours could have picked up said meaning.
we call them elections. You need a dictionary.
you need a brain. what's your point?
so really, it doesn't matter if its november 2004 in america, july 1776 in the colonies, or any point in time in iraq. the governments in those areas exist solely by the consent of those governed.Do you have any clue what you are talking about? I don't and I doubt anyone else does.
yes, i do have a clue what i'm talking about. in america, in july of 1776, a group of people signed a document that we call the declaration of independence. there was a war, and the 13 british colonies gained independence from britain. see jethro, the point was that the consent that the governed gave the government of the time was withdrawn. now, let's go back to 1988. george h.w. bush received consent by the voters of this country to govern. in 1992, said consent was withdrawn. in america, this process happens peacefully. in 1989, said consent was withdrawn from the dictator of romania. violently. see what i'm saying? the only reason saddam was in power is because there weren't enough people in iraq who thought it was worth dying for to get him out.
Ares, How goes it. Long time no see :)
goin well, luv.
Does one have to be there to generalize that people are better off without Saddam and his sons ? Have you read much about what this guy had done and was doing ? Did we need to be there to determine that Yugoslavia was better off without Milosevic? Europe - Hitler? Africa without Emin ?(sp) Cambodia without Pol Pot? I don't think in this case either that one has to go spend a weekend in Baghdad to arrive at a reasonable generalization that the people are better off in general. Judjing from the guys I've talked to that have been there and some back again, the transformation has been amazing in just a year. No, it's not perfect. But one need not be an optimist to admit that in general things are better for the people. It's mind boggling that people with knowledge of his attrocities can assume otherwise.
i'm sure that a lot of iraqi citizens would agree that they're better off now than they were under saddam. but we've all seen the pictures that have come back from iraq of people who aren't better off. iraqis are still getting killed. ok so its a stray bullet that hits them instead of an intentional firing squad. there's not really a whole lot of difference to the family that such a person left behind.
Last year at this time, the media were in full scandal mode over 16 words that President Bush had spoken nearly six months earlier.
Â
   "The British government has learned," Bush had said in his State of the Union address in January, "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
.....................................
But what if it was true?
 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20040712.shtml
it certainly did apply to saddam's government, as it applies anywhere. If you believe that you are even dumber than I have ever imgained.they've always had a chance to put in a government by the people. Really? What planet are you from? It has a resemblance to fold's.  there was never enough support among the people for it. You believe that?
yes, i do have a clue what i'm talking about. in america, in july of 1776, a group of people signed a document that we call the declaration of independence. there was a war, and the 13 british colonies gained independence from britain.Let's see there was an ocean that seperated America from England.
see jethro, the point was that the consent that the governed gave the government of the time was withdrawn. now, let's go back to 1988. george h.w. bush received consent by the voters of this country to govern. in 1992, said consent was withdrawn. in america, this process happens peacefully. in 1989, said consent was withdrawn from the dictator of romania. violently. see what i'm saying? the only reason saddam was in power is because there weren't enough people in iraq who thought it was worth dying for to get him out.
You don't believe that do you? You are saying Saddam's was a legitimate government. I hope you will rethink this because it is utterly wrong.
But if, as president, Kerry would abandon support for Turkey in order to avoid friction with Europe, he should say why. And if he would risk that friction on Turkey's behalf, he must acknowledge, to Bush's benefit, that international harmony is not the highest aim of foreign policy.
 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040711.shtml
i'm sure that a lot of iraqi citizens would agree that they're better off now than they were under saddam.
Then I don't understand how people can say they aren't sure if Iraq is better off without Saddam. Yes there's problems but I don't think making a generalization that things are better off would be out of line.
jethro bodine 7/12/04 10:02am
8 killed in Congo uranium mine collapse
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/07/12/congo.uranium.ap/index.html
Anyone who wants to get a chilling perspective, should visit this discussion board
It give you kind of an idea what the all-powerful United States is up against in terms of world opinion. It's run by a guy named Dr. Kareem.
Opinions like that have been around a long time. The internet and it's proliferation have made it more possible to give it meerly a louder voice. Al Jazerra has done more damage by their eeronious reporting than a decade of decsions by anyone in Washignton.
You been following their coverage? I really haven't besides what I hear off and on. I go to the site once in awhile. Probably more later, as I'm going to the Middle East in December.
I don't follow it everyday no.
no one know for sure...except I'd wager that the 12.000 or so civilian Iraqi that have been killed aren't better off.
Only 12, eh crabs? You loose.
The 12,000 or more that Saddam would have killed and the thousands more he would have tortured are better off. But it is clear, crabs, that you don't believe in fighting for freedom and that you think having Saddam in power was a good thing.
There are two approaches to terrorists. One is to fight them with every weapon you can -- the military, intelligence services, interdiction of money flows, diplomacy. That is what George W. Bush is doing against the Islamist terrorists who struck Sept. 11. The other way is appeasement. Give the terrorists some of what they want, and hope that they will stop being terrorists any more. That was the approach Bill Clinton took in the 1990s to terrorists in Colombia, Israel and Northern Ireland.
 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20040712.shtml
This is a good one for Rick to read. You, too, crabs.
the military isn't a very effective detterant to terrorism. Intel is fine, but Bush's seems to be non-existent, one of the flows of money comes from Bush's business partners in Saudi Arabia (another is the continuation of the "war" on drugs)...and diplomacy? You mention diplomacy and Bush in the same breath? Too funny.
so bodine, you want to explain the difference between diplomacy and appeasement to everyone here? Or would you rather explain how Bush should send the marines in to level Dublin and Jeruselum?
the military isn't a very effective detterant to terrorism. There is NO better deterrent. Intel is fine, but Bush's seems to be non-existent, one of the flows of money comes from Bush's business partners in Saudi Arabia (another is the continuation of the "war" on drugs)...and diplomacy? You mention diplomacy and Bush in the same breath? Too funny. You can't deal with people that had a financial interest in the status quo of Iraq. You do know who had those interests don't you? There was every reason to go into Iraq. The evidence seems to be WMD were shipped out of Iraq while Bush had to deal with the UN. Saddam tortured and killed his own people. He supported terrorists financially. He let them train in Iraq and he promised them safe haven. That we ended the mob deal called the food for oil program is simply icing on the cake.
so bodine, you want to explain the difference between diplomacy and appeasement to everyone here? Or would you rather explain how Bush should send the marines in to level Dublin and Jeruselum? Why should he send anyone in to those places? Let Britain and Israel handle those problems and don't give the enemy an inch.Â
let's talk about the financial interests in what is happening over there.
yes...follow the money.
go ahead.
The Saudi's had a financial interest in seeing a pipeline through Afghanistan...so did Bush and Cheney's other buddies. They also have a financial interest in control of Iraq, certainly.
you don't even understand the nature of the problem here.
let's talk about the financial interests in what is happening over there. You have no clue, crabs.
The Saudi's had a financial interest in seeing a pipeline through Afghanistan...so did Bush and Cheney's other buddies. They also have a financial interest in control of Iraq, certainly. Believe all the conspiracy theories you want, crabs. Each time you write such nonsense you bolster the opinion that you zero credibility.
you don't even understand the nature of the problem here. I understand the problem much better than you ever will. Becuase I don't buy into lies like you do.
Hey, crabs, do you believe this, too?
okay, then explain how military might and actions are effective against terrorism.
and then, if you get around to it, how about explaining the difference between appeasement and diplomacy.
I believe that the rest of the world's opinion of us is quite low at this point, yes.
why? Do you believe that the entire world thinks we are this swell country who do nothing but good things throughout the world? Is that what you believe?
"and then, if you get around to it, how about explaining the difference between appeasement and diplomacy. "
Was tacit support of Iraq by the United States in the Iran -- Iraq war appeasement or diplomacy?
I think bodine thinks the military is the best tool for terrorism ANDdiplomacy
when the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everyhing like a nail
I'm not asking jethro, I'm asking you.
for Iran or Iraq?
it was neither
okay, then explain how military might and actions are effective against terrorism.
In the case of Iraq and the overthrow of the Baathist, the safe haven that they had there is no more. The weapons that Saddam possessed and was working towards will not end up in the terrorists hands. The money he was getting from the oil for food scam will not end up in the car bombers hands. Etc.
looks like the terrorist problem is solved! hooray!
rolls eyes
crabgrass 7/13/04 10:00pm
Roll your eyes all you want. It's your right to do so.
Any history buffs around here that know what my avatar means?
isn't that what King Leonidas told the Persians when they demanded that the Spartans surrender their arms?
"Molon Labe"
"come and take them"
"come and take them"
Something you'll never hear a Liberal say?
I believe also the Spartans were also vastly outnumbered and thus slaughtered. The King may have been wise to give them up and fight when they had a better advantage. But I'm sure those were brutal times when that sort of thing wasn't considered an option.
We've covered this ground.
I thought it was a musical with Nicole Kidman. Nevermind, that was Moulan rouge ;)
I'm a history buff but I have to admit Rich. I did't know what your avatar was. I''m more into history from the 17th century and forward.
I'm a liberal and I believe that people should be able to own whatever they want.
I think bodine thinks the military is the best tool for terrorism ANDdiplomacy
Diplomacy won't get you very far unless you have the military to back it up. And the military is killing off terrorists and that will lead to ultimate victory. The only solution you offer is give them everything they want. That is not the answer.
John Kerry is claiming that George W. Bush has the wrong "values" because he went to war when "he didn't have to." Fair enough, for an election year. But it seems to me that Bush could turn that around on Kerry. I think President Bush can claim the right values precisely because he had the courage to do the right thing in the long run, even if it was the risky thing in the short run. Kerry values stability and alliances for their own sake, which is another way of saying he values popularity over principles. If Iraq becomes the engine of a prosperous and democratizing Middle East in 20 years, who in the next generation won't be grateful for the values of this generation?
 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040714.shtml
1 day after all our troops come home, Iraq will begin it's very-quick return to the middle ages, and Democracy will be forgotten, the killings and treachery of racism will begin again, and tens of thousands of them will die for nothing all over again, ad infinitum...AND, they will blame US for it.
No point in trying then eh? .