Bush Doing Unconstitutional Stuff?,

[OWB]

Someone had to support these terrorists OWB. Wander who that was??

It wasn't Saddam, he didn't even like Al Queda or Bin Laden.

 

[smoke_em06]

It wasn't Saddam, he didn't even like Al Queda or Bin Laden.

Whatever you think OWB. Saddam was in support of anyone that wanted to directly attack our country. Saddam didn't have the balls to attack us face to face. Neither did Osama, but saddam knew that if he secretly supported these terrorists then he could just sit back and watch them attack us. Its common sense.

 

[GVF]

It wasn't Saddam, he didn't even like Al Queda or Bin Laden.

That's right, he was a fan of the US. I almost forgot how much heloved the US. He would never sponsor anything that would harm westerners.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Sadam loved Bush. He was as good as it gets.

 

[therealUT]

It wasn't Saddam, he didn't even like Al Queda or Bin Laden.

I would agree that Saddam was in no way a 'radical Muslim' and that he preferred a secular state. However, Saddam was smart enough to see that these groups could be used for his own gain. I do believe that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, at least in the form of financing. I doubt there were any Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Iraq, prior to our arrival. However, I also know that Saddam made it public that he paid large financial benefits to the families of suicide bombers in Iraq, which, as we know were members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of those groups are not only tied to Al Qaeda, but they basically helped OBL establish Al Qaeda, and both groups have targeted the US and caused US casualties prior to OIF. Therefore, I have no problem with linking Saddam directly to terrorist groups and indirectly to the terrorists that struck the US on 9/11. I would have liked to have seen us also press into Syria and Iran in March of 2003 though, as I believe, militarily speaking, most of the resistance we are encountering now would have been eliminated by our invasion of such countries.

 

[smoke_em06]

That's right, he was a fan of the US. I almost forgot how much heloved the US. He would never sponsor anything that would harm westerners.

OWB sure doesn't think so.

 

[smoke_em06]

I would agree that Saddam was in no way a 'radical Muslim' and that he preferred a secular state. However, Saddam was smart enough to see that these groups could be used for his own gain. I do believe that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, at least in the form of financing. I doubt there were any Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Iraq, prior to our arrival. However, I also know that Saddam made it public that he paid large financial benefits to the families of suicide bombers in Iraq, which, as we know were members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of those groups are not only tied to Al Qaeda, but they basically helped OBL establish Al Qaeda, and both groups have targeted the US and caused US casualties prior to OIF. Therefore, I have no problem with linking Saddam directly to terrorist groups and indirectly to the terrorists that struck the US on 9/11. I would have liked to have seen us also press into Syria and Iran in March of 2003 though, as I believe, militarily speaking, most of the resistance we are encountering now would have been eliminated by our invasion of such countries.

I agree with you real.

 

[OWB]

That's right, he was a fan of the US. I almost forgot how much heloved the US. He would never sponsor anything that would harm westerners.

Of course he didn't like the US, but he didn't care much for Bin Laden and Al Quaeda either. From what I know, Saddam was secular while Bin Laden was religious.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but that's where we sent most of our troops while Al Quaeda slipped out the back door over into Pakistan then spread out amongst the world.

 

[smoke_em06]

Of course he didn't like the US, but he didn't care much for Bin Laden and Al Quaeda either. From what I know, Saddam was secular while Bin Laden was religious.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but that's where we sent most of our troops while Al Quaeda slipped out the back door over into Pakistan then spread out amongst the world.

You still haven't told me your "better than bush" plan.

 

[OWB]

You still haven't told me your "better than bush" plan.

It's a waste of time with you. Go back and read some of my posts from about 2 months ago if you really care.

 

[smoke_em06]

It's a waste of time with you. Go back and read some of my posts from about 2 months ago if you really care.

You have no better plan. Your plan is the same as Kerry's. Turn and RUN!!! Then we will just start all over again.

 

[OWB]

You have no better plan. Your plan is the same as Kerry's. Turn and RUN!!! Then we will just start all over again.

Sorry, your 3rd grade tactics don't work here.

Like I said, research what I've said about the situation if you really care.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I would agree that Saddam was in no way a 'radical Muslim' and that he preferred a secular state. However, Saddam was smart enough to see that these groups could be used for his own gain. I do believe that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, at least in the form of financing. I doubt there were any Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Iraq, prior to our arrival. However, I also know that Saddam made it public that he paid large financial benefits to the families of suicide bombers in Iraq, which, as we know were members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of those groups are not only tied to Al Qaeda, but they basically helped OBL establish Al Qaeda, and both groups have targeted the US and caused US casualties prior to OIF. Therefore, I have no problem with linking Saddam directly to terrorist groups and indirectly to the terrorists that struck the US on 9/11. I would have liked to have seen us also press into Syria and Iran in March of 2003 though, as I believe, militarily speaking, most of the resistance we are encountering now would have been eliminated by our invasion of such countries.

Considering we cannot even control Iraq how could we have done anything in Iran and Syria? Resistance would have been even higher had we gone into both nations. The entire region would have turned on us. It would have been turned into a Crusade of the US trying to take over the Muslim world. We had to pick and choose our battlefield and Iraq was the weakest one of the nations we hated. We picked it and because of poor planning are paying for it. We NEVER could have handled going beyond Iraq. Had we done so, even those moderates would begin believing Osama's message of how the US was determined to enslave the Muslim world.

 

[smoke_em06]

Sorry, your 3rd grade tactics don't work here.

Like I said, research what I've said about the situation if you really care.

Ok OWB. All you see from Irag is the news that comes from your beloved CNN and other liberal media outlets. They twist anything that they can get their hands on and make Bush look bad. They bash our troops and condemn them for being there. Have you ever sat down with somenone who has served over there in the last five years. I actually sat down with someone last night. He had nothing but good things to say about the progress that they are making in Iraq. But you just keep watching CNN and bashing Bush. Hey real. Haven't you served in the service at some time.

 

[therealUT]

Considering we cannot even control Iraq how could we have done anything in Iran and Syria? Resistance would have been even higher had we gone into both nations. The entire region would have turned on us. It would have been turned into a Crusade of the US trying to take over the Muslim world. We had to pick and choose our battlefield and Iraq was the weakest one of the nations we hated. We picked it and because of poor planning are paying for it. We NEVER could have handled going beyond Iraq. Had we done so, even those moderates would begin believing Osama's message of how the US was determined to enslave the Muslim world.

Maybe we could have actually unleashed our military and let us do what we do best: use overwhelming force to close with and destroy the enemy. Instead we are again fighting a war in which we are more concerned with minimizing civilian casualties than in destroying the enemy. Basically, the way we have fought, since Vietnam, goes against all the principles of waging war. I find the correlation between the Vietnam War being the first war we fought in which battlefield pictures and scenes war broadcast the very night of the battle to the US public, interesting to say the least. I honestly believe that we should revert to the WWII media policy, in which all pictures of a battle were not released to the public for, I believe, at least 2 years from the date of the battle.

 

[OWB]

Ok OWB. All you see from Irag is the news that comes from your beloved CNN and other liberal media outlets. They twist anything that they can get their hands on and make Bush look bad. They bash our troops and condemn them for being there. Have you ever sat down with somenone who has served over there in the last five years. I actually sat down with someone last night. He had nothing but good things to say about the progress that they are making in Iraq. But you just keep watching CNN and bashing Bush. Hey real. Haven't you served in the service at some time.

:boredom:

 

[CSpindizzy]

Chalk up another botched policy to our leadership.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Ok OWB. All you see from Irag is the news that comes from your beloved CNN and other liberal media outlets. They twist anything that they can get their hands on and make Bush look bad. They bash our troops and condemn them for being there. Have you ever sat down with somenone who has served over there in the last five years. I actually sat down with someone last night. He had nothing but good things to say about the progress that they are making in Iraq. But you just keep watching CNN and bashing Bush. Hey real. Haven't you served in the service at some time.

Last time I checked, it was the White House who chose to imbed the 'liberal media' with all of those units going in and allowing them to remain in the combat zone. So give Bush the credit for having the media there originally to try and sell his whole war only to see it backfire against him. Ooops. Another quality move by GWB.

 

[therealUT]

Ok OWB. All you see from Irag is the news that comes from your beloved CNN and other liberal media outlets. They twist anything that they can get their hands on and make Bush look bad. They bash our troops and condemn them for being there. Have you ever sat down with somenone who has served over there in the last five years. I actually sat down with someone last night. He had nothing but good things to say about the progress that they are making in Iraq. But you just keep watching CNN and bashing Bush. Hey real. Haven't you served in the service at some time.

I am a Company Grade Officer in the U.S. Army, Infantry.

Needless to say, I would say I have a pretty good handle as to what is happening on the ground in Iraq. Would I say our presence their is necessary? Yes. Would I say that ultimately our work there will be recognized for the greater good of Iraq and the middle east? Yes. Would I state conclusively that Saddam Hussein was directly associated with the 9/11 attack? No.

 

[volinbham]

Of course he didn't like the US, but he didn't care much for Bin Laden and Al Quaeda either. From what I know, Saddam was secular while Bin Laden was religious.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but that's where we sent most of our troops while Al Quaeda slipped out the back door over into Pakistan then spread out amongst the world.

The secular vs. religious is not that big a deal. Both had similar goals. This whole Iraq and 9/11 connection is a red herring. The reasons for going to Iraq were based on a long-term strategy against terror. Was it the right strategy? Time will tell. The admin (as we've discussed before) did not say Iraq was behind or involved in 9/11. Why so many citizens drew that conclusion - I don't know. The admin made many statements that Iraq was not involved in Iraq. In short, criticize the admin for the wrong strategy but at least recognize their goals in the strategy - it was not to go after those responsible for 9/11.

Translations of documents found when Al-Zaquari (sp?) was captured indicate counsel from Iraq to Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan on tactics and techniques (not for 9/11; just for general mayhem). These documents date prior to 2001.

 

[therealUT]

Last time I checked, it was the White House who chose to imbed the 'liberal media' with all of those units going in and allowing them to remain in the combat zone. So give Bush the credit for having the media there originally to try and sell his whole war only to see it backfire against him. Ooops. Another quality move by GWB.

Most of the imbedded journalists went back to the states in and around June 2003, and most of the imbedded guys had great things to say while they were imbedded and for months after they left. However, there are very few that are still imbedded, and most of them are writing books, not OpEds or articles in the daily papers. The books they have written though are pretty conclusive that our actions there are accomplishing great things.

 

[smoke_em06]

I am a Company Grade Officer in the U.S. Army, Infantry.

Needless to say, I would say I have a pretty good handle as to what is happening on the ground in Iraq. Would I say our presence their is necessary? Yes. Would I say that ultimately our work there will be recognized for the greater good of Iraq and the middle east? Yes. Would I state conclusively that Saddam Hussein was directly associated with the 9/11 attack? No.

I certainly salute and appreciate your service. I would say that you have had plenty of interaction with troops that have served in Iraq. If so, what do they think?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Most of the imbedded journalists went back to the states in and around June 2003, and most of the imbedded guys had great things to say while they were imbedded and for months after they left. However, there are very few that are still imbedded, and most of them are writing books, not OpEds or articles in the daily papers. The books they have written though are pretty conclusive that our actions there are accomplishing great things.

Of course they were mostly from the states. Proportionally, there are more local media reporters than national ones.

"Accomplishing great things" is a relative phrase. There are places where 'great things' are being accomplished. But when you look at the grand picture, or even a picture in other areas there is a different story. I've seen areas where we've taken several steps back and some areas we've taken several forward. The issue we have is trying to balance moving forward. if we favor one area others see unfair attitudes. We've basically unleashed what the Balkans saw in the 90's. We've taken an autocratic secular government out that suppressed a lot of religious and cultural differences and opened them all up. We have created the Balkanization of the region.

 

[therealUT]

Of course they were mostly from the states. Proportionally, there are more local media reporters than national ones.

"Accomplishing great things" is a relative phrase. There are places where 'great things' are being accomplished. But when you look at the grand picture, or even a picture in other areas there is a different story. I've seen areas where we've taken several steps back and some areas we've taken several forward. The issue we have is trying to balance moving forward. if we favor one area others see unfair attitudes. We've basically unleashed what the Balkans saw in the 90's. We've taken an autocratic secular government out that suppressed a lot of religious and cultural differences and opened them all up. We have created the Balkanization of the region.

It is hard to begin rebuilding infrastructure where intense fighting is still occurring. However, out of 19 sectors in Iraq, 16 are secure, last time I checked. In the green zones, infrastructure is being built and life is improving everyday. In the 3 hostile sectors, there is an ongoing war.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It is hard to begin rebuilding infrastructure where intense fighting is still occurring. However, out of 19 sectors in Iraq, 16 are secure, last time I checked. In the green zones, infrastructure is being built and life is improving everyday. In the 3 hostile sectors, there is an ongoing war.

Some of those 'secure' regions still see conditions worse than pre-war. Even in areas repeatedly stated as secure, infrastructure remains down. Sewer, water, power, phone, etc. are still down. Even in Baghdad conditions in many sections are worse than pre-war.

And why is intense fighting still going on? I thought 'mission accomplished', etc. had been achieved. You are saying that we still have not met those goals but yet we should have gone into Syria and Iran?