RIJIMMY, you're ignoring the fact that 9/11 was supposed to have changed everything. At least that's what Bush keeps telling us.

Most of the anti-Iraq rhetoric you heard from Congress and Clinton was either based on old intel, or was what the Bush Administration was telling them.

The facts are the Bush Admin didn't have current information to back up what it was saying. Read the Iraq intel report, they had nothing more than fumes.

We all know the most dangerous scenario is a nuke attack and Bush has ignored most of the serious contributors to this threat...Bin Laden, N Korea, Iran and unprotected borders and ports. He has done this because our nation's resources have been consumed by Iraq.

-spence

dang i thought i had you pegged:smash: ok you are granted one plug out of my bag if we run across eachother on the sand or rocks:D
firstly, Iran is alrady sending verbal threats at us for a war if we attack their nuclear facilities, so we are sending threats back at at them...its all very stupid..But i agree, they havent broken any resolutions yet that I know of.

2-none- but they are flexing theier muscles at us and korea has missles pointed at us... thus korea at least poses a huge threat to us..ten fold the threat that iraq posed.

3-Korea is posed to invade south korea at any time... they are at a constant state of iminent attack when called to do so, but they havent attacked anyone yet.

4-your kidding me right??? Um.. Bush has huge holdings in at least one defense company that makes the bombs we use... and slick #^&#^&#^&#^& was the CEO of halliburton, which has been caught several times trying to rip off america... ne's no longer CEO, but he's a huge share holder, so when they make money he makes money... Did you know that halliburton was awarded all the Iraqi contracts without even a bidding process??? Lets also not forget about all the Oil ties between cheeney and bush... like flap said, and like i've said before, the oil compainies posted a 32% profit this year thanks to the war...i bet they made a killing...
5- we all agree that saddam had to be dealt with.. ITS THE WAY BUSH DID IT THAT DRIVES US CRAZY!!!!!:smash: it might have taken longer, but we could have done something else to get him out of power...help stage an overthrow.. something.. but not the way we did it.... this will be another vietnam, you watch...

North Korea doesn't attack South Korea because we have military forces in South Korea and North Korea know that they will become a nuclear wasteland if they do anything stupid.

The treaty or sanction that was broken by North Korea, Libya, Pakistan, India, Iraq and Iran is called the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" They signed it, then they broke it. The treaty against use of chemical weapons is a thing called the Geneva Convention.

If you want to know about a thousand more resolutions that Iraq broke repeatedly, check out the UN Security Counsel web page and do a little reading.

I think to say that the president went to war to increase his personnal wealth is a democrat, anti-bush, anti-military, anti-american, ignorant thing to say. It's not like W. is hurting for cash. I don't understand what the deal was with Halyburton, why the got the contracts without bidding, so I'm not going to defend that or bust on it.

Here's a question on the WMD.

After the first gulf war, the inspectors went into Iraq. The found, Scuds, Chemical weapons, Biological research, Nuclear research. All these thing were accounted for.

Then, they went hiding. Disappeared. We know for a fact that Saddam Hussien used chemical weapons against: The kurds and the Iranians.

During the 12 or 13 years after the first gulf war, the UN inspectors where trying to find the weapons to get them dismanteled. They couldn't find them. I mean, we're talking about specific serial numbers of scuds.

General Franks was really sure that he would use them against us. Why didn't he? Probably because Hussien himself had "weapons release" authority for chemical weapons. We cut off his communication system so completely that he wasn't able to release them.

Are there still WMD in Iraq? YES, probably hidden in some mountain or in some guys garage. But if Hussien would have helped, he wouldn't have gotten invaded. Are we, as a country to assume that these weapons don't exist? Are we to assume that he won't dump one on Boston or Warwick? NOT AFTER 9/11

Republican response
 

Reagan bombed the turds out of the hills and mountains surrounding the lebonese city where the marine corp barracks was bombed. Remember the pictures of the sixteen inch guns on the battle cruisers blazing away.

I

Wow
 

This is the first time I have bother to look at this part of J.R.'s website. If I start typing a response I don't think I could finish before midnight.
Flaptail I am curious when and how your brother died in the service?
Eben, curious how old you are? Just so you know living in Israel doesn't automatically make you a jew. Regardless every male or female citizen of Israel has to enter the armed forces or go to work in a field chosen for you by the Israeli government.
I have never been in the service but have many friends from every era that have including four uncles who spents thirty years or more in the air force, navy, army tank corps.
Everyone here can argue about what a president did or did not do at any given point in time during our countries lifespan. When someone sits and reads all of your statements about what you believe in and what you believe to be true it is easy to see who is selfish and who isn't. I have always felt that the democrats shoot themselves in the foot during times like we have right now in Iraq. To my way of thinking I believe that we should try and help every country who believes democracy is right for them then we should assist that country every way we can. I think democracy in a middle eastern country would be great. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of my fellows democrats don't feel the same way. Most the the Massachusetts democrats think being in Iraq is an obscenity against all good and moral americans. And this is what I mean about selfish democrat. Why is it a great thing for us but not for the Iraqi's. Are they not deserving of better?
Lets be realistic Flap and Eben, where do you want the battle against terrorism taking place here or there. Part of what the troops are doing in Iraq is getting every nut who hates America out of hiding so they can get them in one place and blast the you know what out of them. It will come here to our shores once again though. And guys like you two will be the first to complain that George didn't do enough to protect you or your families. He didn't take away enough personel liberties and start house to house searches and stopping people on the street for routine questioning/interrogation. If your going to offer up all this shallow puddle-deep rhetoric at least you could back it up with answers to the problems posed and talked about. George or anyone else could no more predict the events on 9-11 than a street cop could tell which Cumberlands Farms is going to be robbed.
Eben, before you ask, I am an Irish Catholic who is married to a jew.

Just for ships and giggles some of you more literate folks should read the patriot act.

That alone is reason enough for GWB to be marched out of washington TODAY.

Go find it in the National Register.
Read it.
Then tell me he, and Ashcroft, and the rest of those "Nationalists" who want to "protect the HOMELAND" should stay in office.

GWB is a mindless puppet.

Kerry has a brain in his head. He is able to look at an issue. Form his own opinion, and given new facts reformulate that opinion.

GWB cant even put two words together correctly.

Bush: OB-GYNs Kept from 'Practicing Their Love'
 

Bush: OB-GYNs Kept from 'Practicing Their Love'

Tue Sep 7, 9:27 AM ET

Add Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!

POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. (Reuters) - President Bush offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, included the anecdote about obstetrician gynecologists in his stump speech attacking Democratic presidential rival Sen. John Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, a former trial lawyer.

At a rally of cheering supporters in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Bush made his usual pitch for limiting "frivolous lawsuits" that he said drive up the cost of health care and run doctors out of business.

But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

Unfazed, Bush went on to deride his rivals as "pro-trial lawyer," and concluded, "I think you've got to make a choice. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. I made my choice. I'm for medical liability reform now.":smash: :smash:

Well said MikeTLive :cheers:

And Navy Chief, you don't think David Kay with complete and unfettered access for 3 years now couldn't find them if they were there? We were told he had stockpiles, labs, serious ability to produce...they haven't found a thing.

The only thing that would have worried me about Saddam was nukes and we knew he wasn't even close to these, and the inspectors haven't even turned up an active program.

If al Qaida want's chem or bio weapons I'm sure Syria and Iran can give them all they want. We don't seem to be doing much about those guys though. Oh yes, they actually have the ability to fight back :rolleyes:

We're in it till the end now, but I'm afraid there's no stopping the violence until we pull our troops. Bush's lack of a plan to stabalize the country and secure the border after Saddam fell is killing us, literally.

850 troops have died since Bush declared major combat over. This isn't some miscalculation, they tried to finess the war planning, F'ed up royally and need to be held accountable.

-spence

inspections
 

i remember saddam not letting them inspect buildings for days then saying ok only after he probably moved what they where looking for.

Exactly my point. He had these weapons, this is indisputable. We had serial numbers, batch numbers on this stuff. Then it disappeared. Were did it go ? What happened to Scud #3456 ?
What happened to Chemical drum #7779 ?

Think about searching the entire states of Nevada and Arizona looking for these things that someone is trying to hide.

:) Sadam, most certainly did have WMDs'!!!!!

It is a proven fact!!!!!


And we do have evidence!!!!!

Swimmer, my brother John was in the 1st Marine Div. He went in country on March 1st 1969, unlike others in his infantry unit he had the company of his best friend since Kindergarten, David Roy ( they were our next door neighbors) They went through grammar school, high school and joined the Marines together. Boot camp at Parris Island, advanced infantry training at Camp Le Jeune to San Diego then Nam. John stepped on a land mine on his 2nd patrol and (supposedly) was killed instantly. David was there right behind him when it happened and wrote us a letter a few days later describing the events. On March 21st, ten days later, David was back on patrol as a point man and was killed when a fire fight broke out and he was mortally wounded from a head shot. John's name can be found on panel 26W line 86 and David's name can be found on panel 29W line14.:(

I know, I know...at one point I said the exact same thing.

But most experts agree that little of his bio/chemical weapons would be of much use today, they don't have much of a shelf life.

Don't you find it odd that the UN inspectors found nothing, David Kay with complete and unfettered access for over a year have found nothing, and the new guy who took his place has found nothing of any substance.

Wouldn't you think they could find 1 person out of 20 Million who would stand up to take the reward and tell us where something is?

Don't you think even if it had been moved that we would find some evidence that something had once been there?

So far Zero, Nada, Zilch, Squat.

Read the bi-partisan report on Iraq's WMD. Our only real evidence that Iraq had WMD was that he had them in 1990. The rest was mostly assumption and unverified stories.

It was extremely weak.

I would have personally supported a US led coalition to remove Saddam for UN violations alone, but that's not what was sold. It was the threat that Saddam could deploy WMD in 45 min that drove our timetable. It was the threat of a mushroom cloud in the hands of al Qaida that drove our timetable.

These threats were proven to be absurd distortions not supported by intel or facts.

The World was completely behind us in Afghanistan because we had a clear mandate, so don't say the UN is useless. It's the only Global authority capable of granting legitimacy to such actions, it's our own creation, and it's all we have. For the US to strike pre-emptively against the wishes of the World is always an option, but is the most serious of options. Bush provided no evidence to justify ditching the World and going in with just the UK.

Subverting the UN process to invade when Bush wanted to has done incredible damage to our International credibility and has given our enemies a window of opportunity to exploit which is wide open. In removing Saddam without the World at our side we have given Bin Laden exactly what he asked for.

This is the beef Independents like myself have with Bush over Iraq. It's not that we're pussys or don't see threats, but if you have to fool people to get your way, perhaps something isn't right. The decision to remove Saddam was made long before 9/11, I don't want a President that uses war as a means to an agenda. This is extremely transparent and extremely dangerous.

If our plan is to transform the Middle East by bombing them into Democracy against their wishes, we're making a huge mistake. The notion that they'll be better off for it sound a lot like the master whipping the slave in Roots. Your name is Toby! it's not gonna work and is only going to cause more terror at home if we intend to have an open society and respect the constitution.

-spence

Gee whiz,Cheney likes hitting below the belt, and by the way ...who was VP when 9/11 happened ?

:) Who was the President that could have taken out "Osama"!!!???
But let him go instead!!!!!

You are correct "CLINTON!!!!"

Spence,
If al Qaida want's chem or bio weapons I'm sure Syria and Iran can give them all they want. We don't seem to be doing much about those guys though. Oh yes, they actually have the ability to fight back

- you really think so? After Iraq? Rememebr, Hussein was THE military power in the Middle East, then he was found hiding in a ditch. You think the leaders of Syria and Iran would DARE give any type OF WMD to any terrorists? It aint goign to happen, and you know why? Because Bush said that all countries who harbor or support terrorists will be treated just like terrorist. And he kept his word.
Once again, dont take my words for thsi, read the Ed Koch letter I posted. Read what an 80yr old Democrat and extremely popular and infulential leader had to say.

"Subverting the UN process to invade when Bush wanted to has done incredible damage to our International credibility and has given our enemies a window of opportunity to exploit which is wide open." -Spence

Yea, because UN resolutions do sooooo much. They are a piece of paper, and if you don't want to abide, then don't. We enforced the UN sanctions. The UN security counsel signed our bill to force Saddam to find his WMD or else. The UN signed and delivered this to Hussien. Not solely a U.S. mandate, a UN mandate. So Saddam blew off the UN again and we took him out of the picture.

How many UN resolutions were written telling Gaddafi to get rid of his WMD capability and stop harboring terrorist? Alot. Oh, so after Iraq got invaded, guess who else came around with the white flag? That's right, Mummar. So we put muscle to the resolutions.

UN resolutions might represent "legitimacy" to you.

I think "legitimacy" is a Tomahawk cruise missle, a M-1 Abrams , a F-18 Super Hornet and ordnance on target.

You go Chief:claps:

So should we dissolve all International law, Geneva convention etc... That's what you're calling for right?

-spence

Thanks for the clarification. Good work with those 16 inchers :kewl:

Nope. and you have never met me so your comment is way out of line.

Jigman

Fly Rod, you are going to have to explain that one further. My understanding was that Bin Ladin was offered up to the US under Clinton, but, at that time, had done nothing to the US. We had no reason to take him. Check back a bit further, who helped train Bin Ladin?

Jigman

You know Spence, I spent about 4 years of my life floating around the Northern Persian Gulf enforcing UN Resolutions. I remember having 38 Iraqi oil smugglers parked in our holding area. We would take their ships to the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain and they would sell the ships right back to the Iraqi's. The best thing we could do was take them to Kuwait, because they would kill the crew. (after we left). This during the "oil for food" program. I know that some of these guys were just trying to make a living, but give me a break. It would have made alot bigger impression on them if we would have sunk everyone of those oil tankers.

What I'm saying Spence is that a UN mandate or resolution or sanction means nothing unless someone (like us) goes in and blows something up. Now the UN mandates mean something.
Ask Gaddafi.


Jigman, you're right I don't know you. Sorry about the pot smoking reference. We might have trained OBL to fight Soviets. You know that before WWII some Japanese Admiral named Yamoto went to the US Navy war college.

Chief, I completely agree that UN resolutions without a real threat of violence are worthless. This is exactly the reason Kerry voted to give President Bush authority before He went to the UN to get the inspectors back in.

When and how you use that force is an entirely different matter.

The President promised to build a strong coalition and put the war before a UN vote which he never did because it was clear we didn't have the evidence to justify an immediate invasion.

It was at best extremely reckless, and now we're paying the price.

-spence

Spence

What is the price for your freedom?


Others paid it for you.

No we all pay. We fund the war and loose family members and friends. While the military does the dirty work, elected and appointed civilians send them.

Iraq has been exposed as an idiological war, not a pre-emptive one. The worst thing we can do to our troops is sent them to war on an overstated case, without proper planning and without proper equipment.

-spence

The DEM'S keep talking about proper equipment for the military but they are the one's who have been rapping the military for close to 40 year's now to fund BS social programs, They are the last one who should be pointing a finger unless they are looking in the mirror.

You Go KLMulder

Care to back this up KL because it sounds like a bunch of hot air.

-spence

What has this war cost you Spence ? Do you know anyone that has been KIA ? Did you spend anytime over there ? Have your taxes gone up?

Every time we get a Democrat President our military goes straight down the toilet.