First Spain now maybe Poland.

[NYH1]

Last week it was Spain, and now Poland may start withdrawing its troops from Iraq early next year, months earlier then the previously stated date of mid-2005. Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski said he was "misled" (like everyone else) about the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Poland commands a 9,500-strong multinational force in southcentral Iraq that includes the Spaniards.

I know its only Poland and Spain but who's next? Remember Donald Rumsfeld said Poland is the "new Europe", that sound pretty good doesn't it? Whats the difference between the old Europe and the new Europe?

 I support our troops and the troops of our allieds 150%. I think as this mess in Iraq drags on your gonna see more of this. I mean where are the "weapons of mass desrtuction" that were so dangerous to the rest of the world"?

[BamBams]

Hah!  Who needs em' anyway!

[NYH1]

Hah!  Who needs em' anyway!

If we didn't need them they wouldn't have been their in the first place! With our Army stretched as thin as it is, we need all the help we can get. When this round of troop rotations is done, we will have sent 9 out of the 10 divisions that make up the Army to Iraq. The only division that hasn't been or won't be deployed to Iraq after this rotation is the 2nd Infantry Division. Their in Korea. Their already talking about sending the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division back to Iraq. The 101st hasn't even been home two months and their talking about sending them back already!

[Mikey]

New York Hunter - seriously, I wonder if the Iragis did not already shoot their missles at us during the war and already try to dispose of them chemical warfare stockpiles.  

As I recall, during the initial incursion of this Irag invasion, they did fire a number of their SCUDs at our forces and I thought those were listed as a part of their WMD stockpile.  Also, I recall reports of water samples taken from the Tigres river showing significant enough traces of biological and chemical warfare agents to strongly support the notion that they had been dumped into the river to disppose of them before being caught with them.  

And truthfully, but only from my perspective as I will not impune any others who visit these forums, if you have some bully threatening to bring you harm or support those who have, he's gonna go Buddy, and I'm gonna put his butt down just as hard as I can.  

If he wanted to rattle his sword at me, then please let me rattle the slide of my shot empty 45 back at him, but only after I have shot it out of his hand and taken off enough fingers so he's gonna have a real hard time pickin his nose or rattlin' his saber at me again

Honestly friend, why should we always have to worry about who is going to throw rocks at us next?  Why should we be the only ones (at that time so it seems) to have to live under the fear of being attacked here in our homeland?  I am not saying this in a angry voice or with my fist balled, I'm just saying that all I want to do is to be left to be able to enjoy my life here in the incredibly wonderful country with its wonderful freedoms and opportunities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to enjoy and share the prosperity I have been so fortunate to have been able to obtain.  

Because we have a Constitution that allows us to defend ourselves I will use that freedom to defend the others our Consitution offers and to support my Leaders in their determinations and efforts to safeguard our homeland.

So, for me it is one of these :  Saddam, if you do this, I'm gonna do that, and make no mistake about it.  But, since Saddam didn't believe us and continued to (at least make it) look like he was gonna, we did what we said we were going to do.  Hindsight is always 20-20, foresight should proactive.  

Thanks for taking the time to read this.  Mikey.

[BamBams]

I honestly believe that we don't need them.  Of course, I have to agree that Iraq has placed an extreme burden on our military forces, but I also believe we oughta start doing some other things in regard to our forces that I'm sure to take heat for saying here:

1) Mandatory military service - 3 years.  (great way to give our wannabe gang bangers a way to use their idle time.
2) Increased funding for the military. A major build up -- well actually more like trying to replace what congress and Billy boy have gotten rid of.

I'm actually HOPING that Iraq becomes the catalyst for both of these things.

As far as having to be over there, I swear to you, if I was still young enough, I'd be the first to sign up for a tour of Bagdad.

[magooch]

I honestly believe that we don't need them.  Of course, I have to agree that Iraq has placed an extreme burden on our military forces, but I also believe we oughta start doing some other things in regard to our forces that I'm sure to take heat for saying here:

1) Mandatory military service - 3 years.  (great way to give our wannabe gang bangers a way to use their idle time.
2) Increased funding for the military. A major build up -- well actually more like trying to replace what congress and Billy boy have gotten rid of.

I'm actually HOPING that Iraq becomes the catalyst for both of these things.

As far as having to be over there, I swear to you, if I was still young enough, I'd be the first to sign up for a tour of Bagdad.

At the risk of being disagreeable, I don't believe our military should be polluted with gang bangers or anyone else who doesn't really want to serve proudly in our services.  Today's military is highly technical and it doesn't need to be massive in size.  We need some of our best and brightest to keep our military the best in the world.  The U.S. military should never become the dumping ground for young thugs and dropouts.

I even have a problem with foreigners who serve in our military.  I know there are many who serve and do a good job, but I have to wonder how loyal they might be when the going gets tough.  Maybe they should be made U.S. citizens if they want to serve in our military, but some care must be taken to assure that they have the right motivation.

[BamBams]

I've considered those points when this came up about a year ago on the old Marlin Talk BBS.  

I honestly believe that these kids have great potential, but are simply lacking in guidance and self-esteem.  I believe a tour in the military would be just what they, and this nation, need.  There are jobs suitable for just anyone in the military -- cooks, equipment mechanics, carpentry, etc.  I think we'd get back much finer men than what we sent out.

[NYH1]

2) Increased funding for the military. A major build up -- well actually more like trying to replace what congress and Billy boy have gotten rid of.

I agree with you on this. But lets not forget that the first George Bush did his own "downsizing" to. Under his watch we lost the 9th ID (6-16-1991) and the 5th ID (11-24-1992). And Donald Rumsfeld wanted two "cut" two more Army Divisions too before September 11, 2001. He wanted to cut the 10th Mountain Division, and one other I think the 25th Infantry Division. The 10th has been the most deployed division in the military the last 12-13 years, and he wanted to get rid of them. That makes a lot of sense doesn't it!

[NYH1]

Mikey, if Iraq had all the WMD's the Bush administration said they had we would have found them by now, we found him didn't we?

I know they had some WMD's at one point because they used them against Iran. The U.S. didn't have a problem with that because we were supporting Iraq when they fought Iran. He also used some of them against the Kurds and the Shiites. Did they really have what Bush said they did. I don't think so, like I said we would have found them by now. And again why didn't we take care of it in 1990/91? Iraq poses now greater threat to us now then they did in 1990/91. N. Korea is more of a threat to us then Iraq. Why haven't we invaded them?

Again I support our troops and our allies 150% and always will. I think going into Afghanistan was the right this to do. I think Iraq is all about oil and revenge.

[Mikey]

New York Hunter:  "Again I support our troops and our allies 150% and always will".  I am with you there Hunter and always will be.  

"I think Iraq is all about oil and revenge".  Well, I dunno 'bout that, especially since the price of oil just started going up but hay, I'm all for the price of gasoline going back to under a buck and a half a gallon.
Although the middle east is not our main source of oil I wouldn't want the US to be in the same situation as europe has been for the past 15 years or so with gas at over $2.00 a gallon (even though that's where we are now).

As for the revenge angle - you may be right as rain about that.  I know for a fact that I would be real pissed at some guy who wanted to 'whack' my Dad, and if that guy wasn't above that sort of terrorism I sure wouldn't have had a problem casting the first stone, or cruise missile, er whatever.  

Aren't you glad we have the ability and the freedom to expound on all our feelings and beliefs and talk about whatever we please, whether we agree or not,without the fear that some government nudge is looking or listening over our shoulders.  Lord, this is a great country.  I just love this place.  

Thanks for listening.  Mikey.

[Major]

Mikey, if Iraq had all the WMD's the Bush administration said they had we would have found them by now, we found him didn't we?

I know they had some WMD's at one point because they used them against Iran. The U.S. didn't have a problem with that because we were supporting Iraq when they fought Iran. He also used some of them against the Kurds and the Shiites. Did they really have what Bush said they did. I don't think so.

I remember the UN inspectors finding chemical/biological weapons after Desert Storm.   We demanded the weapons be destroyed and Iraq’s answer was to kick out the inspectors.   Before we went back to Iraq they could not or would not tell us what they did with those chemical/biological weapons the UN inspectors found.   We know they were there, why does everyone forget that?   REMEMBER… REMEMBER…REMEMBER…   I will tell you why.   Because the media doesn’t remind you, that’s why.   Yes, they did use some of those weapons on the Kurds but just a small fraction of what the UN inspectors found.

Now that we are back there, we have found whole jet fighters buried in the sand.   How much easier is it to bury chemical/biological weapons?   I believe the weapons are still there and will turn up one day but it could be years from now.   Iraq is a big sandbox with lots of area to bury things in.   Don’t forget that and burying jets just proves what they were doing to hide things.   I think we need to go over ever square foot with powerful metal detectors.   Who knows what we would turn up?

[magooch]

Mikey, if Iraq had all the WMD's the Bush administration said they had we would have found them by now, we found him didn't we?

I know they had some WMD's at one point because they used them against Iran. The U.S. didn't have a problem with that because we were supporting Iraq when they fought Iran. He also used some of them against the Kurds and the Shiites. Did they really have what Bush said they did. I don't think so, like I said we would have found them by now. And again why didn't we take care of it in 1990/91? Iraq poses now greater threat to us now then they did in 1990/91. N. Korea is more of a threat to us then Iraq. Why haven't we invaded them?

Again I support our troops and our allies 150% and always will. I think going into Afghanistan was the right this to do. I think Iraq is all about oil and revenge.

Let's not forget; it wasn't just the Bush administration that thought Iraq had WMDs, so did much of the rest of the world.  Remember a guy named Clinton--even he thinks we did the right thing by removing Saddam and his two worthless prodgeny.  It's funny too that most of the Democrats, including Kerry thought Saddam had WMDs and should be taken out.  Of course that was before it became apparent that President Bush would get credit for doing what needed to be done.  

This war with Irag is costing far more in lives and money than anyone would like, but I think it was do it now, or do it later.  Saddam or his kids were always going to be a problem that we couldn't just ignor.  Taking care of the problem sooner rather than later will probably serve notice to other potential problem causers that we can not always be counted on to turn the other cheek as we have too many times in the past.  And in the long run, it might prove to be less expensive to do it now than later.

If nothing else, I think we demonstrated to potential adversaries that our military is not something you want to mess with.  Anyone who thinks there wasn't any great resistance and that "Iraqi Freedom" was a cakewalk, needs to review some of the programs about the war that are being run on the History Channel.

[NYH1]

As for the revenge angle - you may be right as rain about that.  I know for a fact that I would be real pissed at some guy who wanted to 'whack' my Dad.

Why didn't his dad take care of his own problems when he had the chance (1990/91)?  :shock:  

Aren't you glad we have the ability and the freedom to expound on all our feelings and beliefs and talk about whatever we please, whether we agree or not,without the fear that some government nudge is looking or listening over our shoulders.

Yes I an! :grin:

  Lord, this is a great country.  I just love this place.  

Me too! :-D

[NYH1]

Let's not forget; it wasn't just the Bush administration that thought Iraq had WMDs, so did much of the rest of the world.

Yeah, they got their infirmation from the U.S. :?

Remember a guy named Clinton--even he thinks we did the right thing by removing Saddam and his two worthless prodgeny.

Then why didn't he remove them?  

Of course that was before it became apparent that President Bush would get credit for doing what needed to be done.

Not Everything is done yet! :shock:  

This war with Irag is costing far more in lives and money than anyone would like, but I think it was do it now, or do it later.  Saddam or his kids were always going to be a problem that we couldn't just ignor.  Taking care of the problem sooner rather than later will probably serve notice to other potential problem causers that we can not always be counted on to turn the other cheek as we have too many times in the past.  And in the long run, it might prove to be less expensive to do it now than later.

Sooner rather than later? We didn't get "ANY" sooner than 1990/91!

If nothing else, I think we demonstrated to potential adversaries that our military is not something you want to mess with.

I hope your right! :roll:

 Anyone who thinks there wasn't any great resistance and that "Iraqi Freedom" was a cakewalk, needs to review some of the programs about the war that are being run on the History Channel.

I know I never said it was a "cakewalk".[/b]

[Major]

This war with Irag is costing far more in lives and money than anyone would like, but I think it was do it now, or do it later.  Saddam or his kids were always going to be a problem that we couldn't just ignor.  Taking care of the problem sooner rather than later will probably serve notice to other potential problem causers that we can not always be counted on to turn the other cheek as we have too many times in the past.  And in the long run, it might prove to be less expensive to do it now than later.

Sooner rather than later? We didn't get "ANY" sooner than 1990/91!

Well all I can say is we were following the UN mandates at the time and we didn’t want to go it alone.   Big mistake, because the UN inspectors did find chemical/biological weapons after Desert Storm.   Right then and there we should have gone back in and kicked butt however we listened to the UN again.   Even when the UN inspectors were kicked out we listened to the UN and stayed out of Iraq.

I am glad we finally stopped listening to the UN and went into Iraq.   I believe the chemical/biological weapons are there, buried in the sand.   I think what we are failing to do now is get the UN out of our country.   With “friends” like that …who needs enemies?

[handirifle]

Hey I want in on this one.
First off, Saddam had aabout 4 months of warnings that we were coming after his, time enough to do a LOT with those weapons.  Even commie Janes' buddy Kerry voted to use force on the creep.

Next on the mandatory service issue?  Well I served during Nam, I was drafted and knew many others that were too.  I also had the "pleasure" of serving with some of the lowest life forms on the planet that some judge thought the military would "straighten them out"  BS.

These were the biggest drug users and pushers we have ever seen and all living off a Gvm't check.  They were given the choice of jail or Army,,,,,duhhhh.

That is the WORST idea this country has ever had.

Todays fighting force in this country is by far one of the finest this nation has ever seen.  The only one better, in my book, are the WWII vets.

Many European nations have turned their backs on us before and we have stepped in an liberated them when they were attacked as well.  Read up on Italy and France in WWII for a fine example.

We could use the manpower for sure but this will not be the first, nor last time this great nation has had to stand alone in these fights.  I just praise God he has given us the strength to do it.

Oh yes, for the record, we have had the LEGAL right to do what we did in Iraq ever since he first kicked out the UN inspectors.  That was part of his conditional surrender in the first war.  What would we have done if Germany or Japan had tried to kick us out and spit in the face of the Allies right after WWII?  I'm sure we would have negotiated with the UN for 6 months, only after waiting eight long years, before finally doing something about it.

If Clinton had balls he would have done this 10 years ago and had it overwith.  Just like the news is now admitting, Clinton had the opportunity to kill Osama but chose not to because he was worried about the Monica incident.  What a shame to the nations highest office he was.  Even Clinton admitted that not killing Osama was his (one of ) greatest mistake.

just for the record, a former CIA officer went on the news right after 9-11 and said we could have gotten Osama nearly any day during the Clinton reign.  Whay didn't we?  The White house would not order it.  Of course the news media quickly forgot about that interview, but now are showing photographic proof af what the officer claimed.

And now we protest what President Bush has done, when it was WAY overdue.

[NYH1]

Hey I want in on this one.

Ok.

Todays fighting force in this country is by far one of the finest this nation has ever seen.  The only one better, in my book, are the WWII vets.

I'm not questioning our fighting force. Its our leader ship that I'm questioning.

Many European nations have turned their backs on us before and we have stepped in an liberated them when they were attacked as well.  Read up on Italy and France in WWII for a fine example.

Your 100% right. And I'm sure will do it again too.

I just praise God he has given us the strength to do it.

Maybe God could have prevented this from happening to begin with.

What would we have done if Germany or Japan had tried to kick us out and spit in the face of the Allies right after WWII?  I'm sure we would have negotiated with the UN for 6 months, only after waiting eight long years, before finally doing something about it.

Your gonna compare Iraq to Germany and Japan. :bye:

If Clinton had balls he would have done this 10 years ago and had it overwith.

You seem to be leaving out some of the most important facts. If the first George Bush would have finished the job in 1990/91 we wouldn't be there now. You people always leave that out. :shock:

just for the record, a former CIA officer went on the news right after 9-11 and said we could have gotten Osama nearly any day during the Clinton reign.  Whay didn't we?  The White house would not order it.  Of course the news media quickly forgot about that interview, but now are showing photographic proof af what the officer claimed.

Yes Clinton could of and should of done more to try to get Osams. Don,t blame Iraq on Clinton. That was Daddy bush's fault for not finishing it in 1990/91.

And now we protest what President Bush has done, when it was WAY overdue.

Your right it should have been done in 1990/91. Daddy Bush dropped the ball!

[papajohn428]

From what I remember about all this, it was Colin Powell and the U.N. that talked Bush out of getting medievel on Saddam-Who's-Insane, and after we left he had his people murder a few hundred thousand Kurds, for wanting to be liberated.  As for the WMD's, every major nation on earth has an intelligence bureau, and they all believed the same things we did. MI5 even said this month that their data showed the same things ours did, that the WMD's were there, and are now so well hidden we'll probably find them in 50 years, if at all.  There are also reports that while the U.N. inspectors were kicked out, that most of the WMD's were secretly shipped to Syria, a country that sure as hell is not an ally.  I fully expect that as soon as our troop levels drop far enough, Syria will start heading the same direction Iraq had gone.  Terrorizing its citizens, funding terrorists, and stirring the Islamic fundamentalists into a rage over our "atrocities".
Personally, I think we ought let the Middle East solve it's own little problems, seal our borders, and kick the stinking U.N off the continent.  What have they EVER done that benefitted the U.S.?  We have poured enough money down that hole, let's use it all for our military, and then no one will have the nerve to attack us ever again, the retaliation we could bring down would be too horrible to contemplate.  Anybody else ready to secede from the U.N.?      :x
 PJ

[handirifle]

papajohn
you arecorrect.  Bush Sr. didn't take out Saddam completely because he complied with the pansies in the UN's requst.  That we simply back him out of Kuwait.  If he had gone into Bagdad we would be hearing the same stupid comments we hear now, that he is a war monger.  Sadam is every bit as bad as Germany and Japan.  He has practiced genocide and dropped chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iran and would be a world threat if we let him.  He just wasn't as big to start with.  Why else did Saudi Arabia let us in the first time?  They were AFRAID of him, they knew he was a maniac and wanted a more powerful force there to deter him.

Bush did as the UN asked and you see what it got him.  He got criticised for not finishing the job.

Jr. finished what Bill ( I want a BJ) Clinton should have done and enforce the UN resolution Saddam agree to in his surrender.  I say piss on the UN and anyone that goes along with it.  THEY want to be the ONLY power with weapons and NO civilians will have arms of ANY kind.  That is a publicly stated UN goal.  Ask Ted Turner, he spoke to the UN and offered financial support.

God has never promised to give us a life of peace on earth (not yet), he gave US a choice and we get to live out it's results.

[Major]

Personally, I think we ought let the Middle East solve it's own little problems, seal our borders, and kick the stinking U.N off the continent.  What have they EVER done that benefitted the U.S.?  We have poured enough money down that hole, let's use it all for our military, and then no one will have the nerve to attack us ever again, the retaliation we could bring down would be too horrible to contemplate.  Anybody else ready to secede from the U.N.?      :x     PJ

 Bush did as the UN asked and you see what it got him.  He got criticised for not finishing the job.

Jr. finished what Bill ( I want a BJ) Clinton should have done and enforce the UN resolution Saddam agree to in his surrender.  I say piss on the UN and anyone that goes along with it.  THEY want to be the ONLY power with weapons and NO civilians will have arms of ANY kind.  That is a publicly stated UN goal.

If it were put up for a vote to get rid of the UN... I would be the first in line.   They are one of our biggest enemies.  

[handirifle]

NYH
How about when NY gets Hillary to run for Pres we send you Dianne Fienstien to either be her VP or replace her.  You wouldn't notice a single change, trust me. :grin:

We might even throw in another Democrat Sen for good measure.

Hillary will never settle on a VP slot, she had that for 8 years.

God could have prevented it but he lets us wallow in our own muck, just to see what life without Him will be like forever.

[NYH1]

handirifle, Hillary wasn't the VP for eight years, I thought she was "THE MAN" for eight years.
We don't need anymore Dumocrap's we have enough, their cantaminating everyone as it is. Our Republican"t Gov George Pataki you know George W Bush's good friend, is just as bad as most liberals. :twisted:

[ironglow]

Liberal claptrap....I support the troops!...( I just don't support what they are doing!....
 
  Yeah Sure!!..I support the police..(but not what they are doing)
       
                    I support Doctors...        "             "          "

                    I support firemen....       "             "           "

                    I support nurses...          "             "           "

                    I support hunters....        "             "           "


        Do any of those statements make any kind of common sense???

   Our troops are for the most part, dedicated , volunteer, professionals.
     
         If you don't support the mission they have sworn to do....you don't support them.....end of story!!!

[magooch]

Ironglow--sir you are right on.

[ironglow]

Also...

    Looks like many of the Spanish are "Spanish peanuts" when it comes to courage!
   Much like the French fries that are "half-baked".

[Major]

Also...

    Looks like many of the Spanish are "Spanish peanuts" when it comes to courage!
   Much like the French fries that are "half-baked".

Oh how true...      :-D    

[jgalar]

So we haven't found WMD. Its a big country we are searching in. A child goes missing here and there are masses of searchers looking and 6 months later the child's body is found 2 miles from home. A container of biologicals the size of a coffe cup could wipe out a continent. Its no surprise that we havent found them yet.

Iraq was full of terrorist training camps. While our soldiers are getting killed over there they are killing terrorsits that could just as easily be sent over here. We are taking the fight to the terrorists.

Ever since the Carter administration we have been reacting to terrorists attacks - under Bush we are attacking them where they live.

[Fla Brian]

NYH,

OK, so George Sr. dropped the ball. And you criticize him for it. Then BJ dropped his pants. And you remind us that George Sr. dropped the ball.

So George Jr. is doing what needed to be done years ago ... and you're complaining about it.

If George Sr. had, indeed, finished Saddam off, I'm betting you would have had the same attitude about it then that you have with regard to our finally doing what needs to be done now.

As for the WMDs, who gives a ! We know he had them, we know he used them and we know he didn't comply with the UN resolution to provide documentation for their destruction.

We've uncovered all sorts of evidence of a WMD program. The fact is that Saddam had all kinds of time to stash the actual poisons away somewhere. We may never find them, it took us a long time to find Saddam, and he was a whole lot bigger than a jar of poison, but the important thing is, if they're buried somewhere in the desert, that they won't be used against us.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. We did it for oil. You suppose you can cut out using that DNC talking point now that it turns out that we're not looting Iraq of its oil, as we did not loot Kuwait, and our gasoline prices are at, or near, an all time high?

I suppose it has escaped your notice that, since we destroyed the Hussein regime in Iraq, Libya has fessed up and agreed to destroy its WMDs. And, we've not experienced a terrorist attack since our President demonstrated what the consequences of such an attack would be.

Learn from history. A nation that has demonstrated its will to answer any attack on itself with overwhelming force is never attacked. Just as a schoolyard bully will never pick on anyone who will fight back. I have personal experience with that scenario as I was a pretty short kid and was picked on constantly by a tall bully. That all ended the day I kinda cracked and reacted to his abuse by launching myself at him with fists flying.

Show weakness and your enemies will line up to take shots at you.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Teddy Roosevelt was right. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

[NYH1]

NYH,

OK, so George Sr. dropped the ball. And you criticize him for it. Then BJ dropped his pants. And you remind us that George Sr. dropped the ball.

You just can't get away from comparing Clinton to both Bush administration. I didn't say anything about Clinton. You actually sound like "W" he still sounds like he's running against the Clinton (Gore) administration. :eek:

So George Jr. is doing what needed to be done years ago ... and you're complaining about it.

Yes I'm complaining about it. The only reason were there now is because "Daddy" dropped the ball. :roll:  

If George Sr. had, indeed, finished Saddam off, I'm betting you would have had the same attitude about it then that you have with regard to our finally doing what needs to be done now.

First off the only reason we went to Iraq in 1990/91 is because the U.S, didn't want Iraq to have control of Kuwait's oil fields. Second why would you let someone stay in power after you just used "MILITARY FORCE" to remove them from another country? :?:  :?:  :?:

As for the WMDs, who gives a ! We know he had them, we know he used them and we know he didn't comply with the UN resolution to provide documentation for their destruction.

Why didn't the UN go after Iraq. Oh they did the used us to do their dirty work. :oops:  

We've uncovered all sorts of evidence of a WMD program. The fact is that Saddam had all kinds of time to stash the actual poisons away somewhere. We may never find them, it took us a long time to find Saddam, and he was a whole lot bigger than a jar of poison, but the important thing is, if they're buried somewhere in the desert, that they won't be used against us.

The only way they could be used against "US" is if we were there. Iraq didn't have the capabilities to hit anything more them a few hundred miles away. :?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. We did it for oil.

Yes we did.

You suppose you can cut out using that DNC talking point now that it turns out that we're not looting Iraq of its oil, as we did not loot Kuwait, and our gasoline prices are at, or near, an all time high?

I'm not using any DNC talking points! Its the truth. I make my own opinion, unlike some of you that believe everything a certain political party or religion says. I never said said we were "looting" anyone, so please don't put words in my month. And yes gasoline is at an all time high. I believe it was one of "W's" 2000 campaign issues, he was gonna take care of that. He did a good job!

I suppose it has escaped your notice that, since we destroyed the Hussein regime in Iraq, Libya has fessed up and agreed to destroy its WMDs.

I'm sure thats had a lot to do with it, NOT Reagan sent two bombs through his front door that didn't change anything. I wouldn't give Bush a lot of credit for it either.

And, we've not experienced a terrorist attack since our President demonstrated what the consequences of such an attack would be.

Don't fool yourself, that kind of thing takes time to plan. I hope not but its VERY possible it might happen again.

Learn from history. A nation that has demonstrated its will to answer any attack on itself with overwhelming force is never attacked.

So I guess that means were gonna keep being attacked then. We don't use overwhelming force, are you kidding. We p*ssy foot around. Most so called experts say that Iraq was a "fifth rate" army if that. Were still there a year later. Iraq is probably woste off now then when we invaded.

Just as a schoolyard bully will never pick on anyone who will fight back. I have personal experience with that scenario as I was a pretty short kid and was picked on constantly by a tall bully. That all ended the day I kinda cracked and reacted to his abuse by launching myself at him with fists flying.

Good job. :grin:

Show weakness and your enemies will line up to take shots at you.

 

They are.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Practice what you preach. :wink:

Teddy Roosevelt was right. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

I agree! :-)

[NYH1]

Fla Brian, N. Korea is a much greater threat to the United States then Iraq ever was or ever would have been. Why aren't we going after them? They could launch a nuclear missile and kill the entire U.S. Army's 2nd Infantry Division and their supporting unit's in S. Korea. Thats around 30,000 American's. So to make the N. Korea happy we are gonna move our troops away from the DMZ. What happened to "overwhelming Force"

 Iraq couldn't came close to what N. Korea could do to us. The only way Iraq could harm the U.S. is if we were there.

And yes I think the Clinton adminisrtation totally blew it with Al-Quida. :twisted: