NYH,
You really ought to go back and read your other posts before you make statements that aren't accurate.
I didn't say anything about Clinton.
From an earlier post:
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.
Why didn't the UN go after Iraq. Oh they did the used us to do their dirty work.
They didn't go after Iraq because that body is made up of a bunch of leftist countries whose attitude is reflected in your comments. As for our doing their dirty work, you obviously didn't pay all that much attention to what went on in the UN. Our opposition there did everything they could to prevent us from doing anything about Iraq. If they wanted us to do their dirty work, they would have given us their blessing. I think you're just a little bit confused.
I like the way you selectively quoted my comments about your complaining about the current administrations finishing the job that Bush SR. didn't finish. You complain that Bush Sr. dropped the ball, but when his son goes in to pick up that same ball and run with it, you complain about that too. I reiterate. If Bush SR. had gone in after Saddam, you would have complained about it then as well. Now you complain about the fact that he didn't.
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?
There's something wrong with us not wanting control of Kuwait's oil fields in the hands of a genocidal maniac? Kuwait just happened to be an ally, and we felt obligated to come to her aid. I think you've got oil on the brain. And, again, what's your problem? George W is now doing what you seem to think should have been done back then.
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.
So, what you're saying is Saddam couldn't have sold or given WMDs to a terrorist group to smuggle into this country for use against us. Does the word "anthrax" ring any bells?
Smuggling all sorts of toxins into this country would be child's play for a determined enemy. It could come in in a toothpaste tube or any number of inocuous looking containers. Clearly, one does not need ICBMs to deliver such weapons. All one would need would be an airline ticket. I think Saddam could have afforded one or two of those.
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!
Of
course you're not. It's just a mere coincidence that all the lefty demoncraps are echoing the same mantra. Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth, I never said I believe everything that any political party tells me. Nice try, but no cigar on trying to turn the tables on me. And, my religious beliefs haven't anything to do with this discussion, so kindly refrain from bringing them up.
You may not have used the word "looting," but it adequately describes what we'd be doing with regard to the region's oilfields if, in fact, we had only gone there for the oil as you say.
Excuse me, but W never made any campaign promises about fuel prices. In fact, the economic problems he inherited were created by your boy, BJ. And, thanks to W's policies, we're beginning to pull out of the Clinton recession.
I'm glad to see that you agree that he did a good job.
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.
Are you deliberately misconstruing what I said? From what do you conclude that we're pussy footing around in Iraq? I point out that our willingness to use overwhelming force would keep other countries, or forces, from attacking us. And, they haven't. Yes, we're still in Iraq, helping to allow a democratic government to be formed. We spent many years in Germany and Japan after those countries were defeated. I doubt that we'll spend near as much time in Iraq.
And another lib talking point is in the air. Iraq is worse off now, with a genocidal/homicidal maniac and his two equally disposed sons removed from power than it was when they still controlled the country and tortured, raped and killed hundreds of thousands of people? You think you'd rather live in a country where you could be executed for criticizing the top guy? You think you'd have lasted a day in Iraq under Saddam if you'd said anything about him like what you say about Bush?
I really get a kick out of how you simply will not give George W credit for anything. You assert, if I read you correctly, thst Libya's fessing up was because Reagan bombed that country years ago. Boy, it sure takes Qaddafi a long time to make up his mind doesn't it? I guess it's only a coincidence that it occurred hard on the heels of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
