Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

erps

al Qaeda already attacked my state. I live in NY. My brother watched the planes hit the WTC. We in NY dont need to be told what terrorism is about by people who were never closer than a thousand miles to any real terrorism.

But you can count on this. If the US invades an Arab country al Qaeda will come there. In fact, the Bush administration failure to get Osama has made al Qaeda so popular on the wacko fringe that they are scrambling to CALL themselves al Qaeda even when they have never had anything to do with the original Osama crowd at all.

The bottom line to this (and why it is so ridiculous to argue about what battlefield would be more pleasant to fight on) is that YOU DONT GET TO PICK.

Saddam didnt attack us. Osama did. He did it with the support and protection of the Taliban who refused to give him up so we went after him as we should have. Bush failed to give this fight the resources it needed because he wanted to invade Iraq. Now we neither have Osama nor have we done anything useful in Iraq. Quite the contrary - Many many observers (including many in the military) regard Iraq as the best possible recruiting tool Osama could ever have.

Great job Bush. Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 75% of us out here want you gone because you are an ignorant incompetent moron.

And that is why McCain is losing - He supports that idiot right down the line on Iraq. So get ready for President Obama!!!!

[knothead]

Originally Posted by sck5

President Bush himself said there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we attacked and you guys still believe the lies spouted by the administration that said they were there.

By the way, it was Al Qaeda who attacked us, remember?

I'm sorry, I thought that you stated that Iraq had nothing to do Islamic terrorism.

[sck5]

knothead

it didnt. everyone interested in facts knows that. But now that we are there, you can read in the paper every day about terrorist acts against our troops there. Most of them have nothing to do with al Qaeda or Islam but it is reported that there is now some presence of al Qaeda there. However, there is debate over the extent to which al Qaeda in Iraq is really a subsidiary of Osama or whether it is just opportunistic guys claiming the name of the most famous guy ever to attack the US and get away with it.

[knothead]

Originally Posted by sck5

knothead

it didnt. everyone interested in facts knows that. But now that we are there, you can read in the paper every day about terrorist acts against our troops there. Most of them have nothing to do with al Qaeda or Islam but it is reported that there is now some presence of al Qaeda there. However, there is debate over the extent to which al Qaeda in Iraq is really a subsidiary of Osama or whether it is just opportunistic guys claiming the name of the most famous guy ever to attack the US and get away with it.

Okay, now you are confusing me. Not hard to do btw.

How do you figure that financing the suicide bombers is not supporting Islamic terrorism?
Did you read the story? Or do you just not believe that it is true?

Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers' families.

[sck5]

I remember seeing that article. As I recall, when the Israelis catch (or ID) someone they go and blow up their family's house. Saddam (and maybe some other countries too? I cant recall) would then give the families some money to start a new house.

Unless you think every Arab who blows something up is an "Islamic terrorist" this really isnt the same thing - This is the Palestinian-Israeli fight over land. I certainly dont like anything that promotes more terrorism but are you seriously suggesting that we ought to have invaded Iraq to help the Israelis punish the families of Palestinians then I have to say you are nuts. There is NO WAY we should get involved in THAT dispute on the level of US troops unless and until it is to enforce a comprehensive peace agreement that they all sign on to. These Palestinians were not attacking the US. They were attacking Israel. We already support the Israelis a lot and it would be an incredibly huge jump for us to start doing it with the US Army in person. Nobody on either side of this debate has ever suggested we should do that.

[cardiacpaul]

"everyone interested in facts knows that..."
ho-hum... how many times to these "facts" need to be addressed? Hmmm? c'mon, wheres the outrage concerning these... how did you put it? Oh, yea..."ignorant incompetent moron" I'd like the door TO hit them in the ass on the way out.

how many times must we be reminded...
""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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"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)

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

[knothead]

Originally Posted by sck5

I remember seeing that article. As I recall, when the Israelis catch (or ID) someone they go and blow up their family's house. Saddam (and maybe some other countries too? I cant recall) would then give the families some money to start a new house.

Unless you think every Arab who blows something up is an "Islamic terrorist" this really isnt the same thing - This is the Palestinian-Israeli fight over land. I certainly dont like anything that promotes more terrorism but are you seriously suggesting that we ought to have invaded Iraq to help the Israelis punish the families of Palestinians then I have to say you are nuts. There is NO WAY we should get involved in THAT dispute on the level of US troops unless and until it is to enforce a comprehensive peace agreement that they all sign on to. These Palestinians were not attacking the US. They were attacking Israel. We already support the Israelis a lot and it would be an incredibly huge jump for us to start doing it with the US Army in person. Nobody on either side of this debate has ever suggested we should do that.

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the subject.

Yes, I guess I pretty much believe that every Arab who blows something up is an "Islamic terrorist".
What do you call them?

No, I am not suggesting that we ought to have invaded Iraq to help the Israelis punish the families of Palestinians.
I am suggesting that we ought to have invaded Iraq because Saddam supported terrorism, (The $500,000 U.S. doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago.), and was flaunting the UN sanctions in place against him.

Since it has never been suggested that the US military support Israel, let me do so now.
If Israel were to be attacked by a foreign power, huge jump or not, I'm pretty sure that we would be available for military support when asked.
I know that I would be in favor of it.

[bwalker42]

Originally Posted by sck5

erps


And that is why McCain is losing - He supports that idiot right down the line on Iraq. So get ready for President Obama!!!!

In previous times it has been stated, "If you don't vote, don't complain"

I say

"1Ti 2:1	¶	I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
	1Ti 2:2		For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." and that's all I have to say about that!

[sck5]

cardiac

you have listed all the dems who were foolish enough to think that the President of the United States wouldnt lie about something as serious as war. Many of us at the time knew he was lying. All now know it unless they choose to close their eyes to the truth. Most of those you quote have since said they made a mistake to believe Bush and Cheney.

So, do YOU still believe in the truthfulness and competence of the President? If so, vote for McCain!!!!!!

[sck5]

"Yes, I guess I pretty much believe that every Arab who blows something up is an "Islamic terrorist".
What do you call them?"

There are something like two dozen different Arab countries. There are many more countries that are predominantly Islam from western Africa to Indonesia. Not every fight they get into is about religion. Not all of them are on some kind of jihad against unbelievers. Just to take the example of the Palestinians, their main issue is land. They and the Israelis both want to live on the same territory and that has proved to be kind of hard to work out. Religions differ between the two peoples but the primary issue isnt a religious one. So, no, I dont call those guys "Islamic terrorists" because they dont claim authority from Allah but rather claim that the land is rightfully theirs. No doubt you can find groups that ARE religious but just to take one of the most important examples, Yasir Arafat wasnt particularly religious.

In sum, it is wrong to group 1.2 billion people into one category and think you can understand them that way. It is like grouping together everyone in the world who is Christian or everyone who speaks English. The world is more complicated than that.