>Afghanistan was their main base, which was next door to Iraq. Afghanistan is toast (as a terrorist base) because of the U.S. Where do the terrorists go? Hey, there is a brutal dictator right next door that hates the U.S. as much as we do. Maybe he will help. The U.S. in the mean time has intelligence that says Saddam has WMDs. Since there are terrorist camps in Iraq, and Saddam may be tempted to slip some of the chems or bios to terrorists for the chuckles (like the way he paid the families of suicide bombers against Israel), and he has broke every resolution against him, maybe we would be well served to fix that. We could also help the people in Iraq in the mean time. Getting the idea? Is this more implausable than the Bush wants to get his oil friends rich idea that the Bush hating idiots on this thread claim? It might be to some, but these people are quite gullable imo. Many think that all of these problems are caused by us to begin with, so they are already on the same side as the religious zealots who have waged war on us in this regard. I think you can get my point.
Don't buy it. Sorry. Don't like the "oil rich friends" theory either, though.
>Anybody who believes the demo lie that we have abandoned this effort against Al Quaida are DAMN FOOLS imo. What evidence do you have that we have given up this fight. You can answer if you want, but I know the answer. You have NO EVIDENCE of that. None at all.
For one thing, I didn't mean we'd given up, just that we diverted precious resources such as soldiers and money from hunting real terrorist groups so we could fight in Iraq. Remember, when making its budget request for 2003, the White House initially forgot to ask for any money for Afghanistan. Just shows where their priorities are.
>"I've always thought that we'd need to spend at least 15-20 years and hundreds of billions in each country to accomplish that, and that we'd need to be prepared to be in it for the long haul"
>We will. And Bush and his supporters realize this. Many of the Bush detractors want the process to stop. Whose side are they on?
They may realize it now, perhaps, but that's not what they were saying initially. Certainly not. Many administration members were quoted in the press as alluding to Iraq being a piece of cake. Even GWB had his little "Mission Accomplished" show in May. That was truly ridiculous.
>There is NO LACK OF COMMITTMENT in this adminstration. That lack of committment can be found in most all of the dem candidates except Lieberman. I suggest steering wide and clear of these bozos if you want to win this war. We have seen how the most recent dem Presidents (Carter and Clinton) have handled these affairs and is SCARES THE CRAP out of me. All we need is another Blackhawk down episode or Iranian hostage rescue attempts (before your time?) to put us back 20 years in this war. Jeez, get serious when you think about this scenario.
What did Reagan do after Hizbollah bombed the Marines barracks in '82?
>Bush has said from the beginning that we need to be in for the long haul.
He did not. He has lately, though.
>He didn't offer guesses to the cost and length BECAUSE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, and he is an honest man.
It is possible to figure out this sort of thing. That's what experts and think tanks are for.
>"We're going to get a similar rude awakening as we approach the June 30th deadline of handing over power to the Iraqis. They're not ready, and we're talking at least a few years until they are"
>A) You don't know they won't be ready, and B) if they are not then we will be there a while longer. Another reason why Bush did not get specific. If you think it is because Bush and his team are dumb or dishonest I think you are listening to too much of the anti-American demo propaganda.
Many administration officials have been adamant about that date.
>If you want to succeed in America, work hard and educate yourself. If you want to help others, encourage them to do the same. Our country is not a socialist country, and the government is not intended to dole out jobs and provide for people. It is to protect our popualtion and to regulate a system that allows people to prosper. It is the greatest nation (and concept) on planet earth as of this moment. That some feel the gov't should supply for money and jobs for people is irrelevent. Maybe there are other countries that offer jobs and money they could look in to. But I don't think they will find a better gig. Much easier for them to complain about how shitty it is here and to offer support to Saddam and the terrorists. Although I hate those who do this, I am damn glad our country allows it. Gives me a nice opportunity to talk about what I think makes our country great (and to make fun of them at the same time).
I disagree. The government can kill two birds with one stone by hiring people for public works projects. Useful ones. Get my potholes filled!
>Our house ain't that bad. 5.7% unemployment, no inflation to speak of. Pretty solid, and getting better (much to the chagrin of the haters). If you think putting a dem in charge will help I think you are seriously mistaken. The people make this country great (repbulican view), not the government (demo view).
5.7% unemployment, but many "discouraged", underpaid, underemployed... the picture isn't very good. I know too many people who are qualified but can't find jobs. I'm not rooting against the economy. I want these people to have them.
The government can help the people.
-Z |
