aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
aquapub said:Now that we have a president who won't let Al Queda attack us with impunity, something IS being done about Al Queda. They exist now largely in symbolism. Their infrastructure and capabilities are a shadow of what they were.
aquapub said:We stopped Bill Clinton's appeasement policy towards North Korea.
aquapub said:Now, the terrorists are attacking our SOLDIERS over there, instead of our CIVILIANS over here.
aquapub said:Anyone who could look at all that is going on and deduce that we need to stop standing up to terror or that the overall mission has failed needs to stop getting their news from Michael Moore.
aquapub said:When President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier under the banner reading, "Mission Accomplished," he was congratulating the troops on toppling Saddam. Staying true to form, Democrats tote this around as some trophy of Bush embarrassment, knowing full well that he was not claiming the work in Iraq was done.
With all the spin going on by the ever-unreasonable, oblivious tantrum-throwing left, it is a wonder anyone has any clue how well things are going.
Now that we have a president who won't let Al Queda attack us with impunity, something IS being done about Al Queda. They exist now largely in symbolism. Their infrastructure and capabilities are a shadow of what they were.
We have taken out a known terror sponsor and his entire regime-Saddam.
Now, the terrorists are attacking our SOLDIERS over there, instead of our CIVILIANS over here. Soldiers volunteer for that crap and are much better equipped for it.
We stopped Bill Clinton's appeasement policy towards North Korea.
Anyone who could look at all that is going on and deduce that we need to stop standing up to terror or that the overall mission has failed needs to stop getting their news from Michael Moore.
gwynn said:Both the attacks in Spain and London were successful after Al Qaeda was dislodged from thier base of power. So how are they merely symbolic now?
The main reason North Korea pulled out of the 1994 treaty and restarted thier nuclear reactors was that the US never fulfilled thier part of the treaty. There likely never would have been recent problems with North Korea if the treaty had been followed.
aquapub said:When President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier under the banner reading, "Mission Accomplished," he was congratulating the troops on toppling Saddam. Staying true to form, Democrats tote this around as some trophy of Bush embarrassment, knowing full well that he was not claiming the work in Iraq was done.
aquapub said:Now that we have a president who won't let Al Queda attack us with impunity, something IS being done about Al Queda.
aquapub said:We have taken out a known terror sponsor and his entire regime-Saddam.
aquapub said:Now, the terrorists are attacking our SOLDIERS over there, instead of our CIVILIANS over here. Soldiers volunteer for that crap and are much better equipped for it.
aquapub said:We stopped Bill Clinton's appeasement policy towards North Korea.
aquapub said:Anyone who could look at all that is going on and deduce that we need to stop standing up to terror or that the overall mission has failed needs to stop getting their news from Michael Moore.
And he was correct. There is no more Saddamite army to threaten us or Iraq's neighbors, and we are left only with terrorists to contend with.Kandahar said:Bush claimed that "major combat operations in Iraq are over." I don't know how he could've been any more clear.
Bill Clinton was quite successful in postponing the problem until someone else had to deal with it.Yes, Bill Clinton secretly had a desire to have al-Qaeda take over the world, establish a caliphate, and force you to read the Qu'ran. Wait, no he didn't.
They are not proven lies. Where do you think Zarqawi went to get his leg fixed after he was wounded in Afghanistan?Saddam Hussein never harbored terrorists. Why do you persist with these proven lies?
Of course they would. What makes you think they would not repeat a success if they could?So that implies that they WOULD be attacking us over here if we weren't in Iraq? What are you basing this on?
Hardly. Bush demands verification. Clinton, like Kofi Annan, is satisfied with rhetoric.This proves you don't know what you're talking about. Bush's policy toward North Korea is almost exactly the same as Clinton's.
Diogenes said:And he was correct. There is no more Saddamite army to threaten us or Iraq's neighbors, and we are left only with terrorists to contend with.
Of course they would. What makes you think they would not repeat a success if they could?
Gandhi>Bush said:Do you think success in the eyes of our enemy is seen as merely killing people or changing the way things work in America?
VTA said:If you take them at their word, success is measured by 'a world without Zionism and the United States', as recently stated by the President of Iran.
A world without another country.
A world where Islamic law rules.
Success for them is changing the way things work in the world, not just the U.S. Check out their actions against Christians, Buddhists and even their own people who do not practise Islamic Law properly, in the Far East, in the Middle East, anywhere that an ideology that refuses to be subjugated to Islam exists.
I wish with everything that's in me that your mantra of peace could overtake the world. The sad fact is that there are far too many variables and perspectives for this to be attainable.
We haven't evolved past getting worked up over the color of someone's skin, how in Gods name can we accept anothers view point of religious law? Of an ingrained ideological psychology?
Humanity has come this far, evolving violently and will continue in this manner. Earth isn't the place for Utopia.
Gandhi>Bush said:If this is truly how our enemy measures success, then they have had none. We must keep it that way. Do not submit. Simple.
What kind of variables?
Have you gotten past the color of a man's skin in your own life? If it is possible in one, it is possible in all.
Have you gotten past the color of a man's religious beliefs in your own life? If it is possible in one, it is possible in all.
Humanity cannot continue in this manner. Not in the Nuclear Age. To continue the path of violence is to ensure the destruction of our race and our world. Nonviolence is not just an option, it's an imperative if you're interested in survival.
VTA said:Variables of the above mentioned kind; an intolerant attitude toward others' beliefs and system of values. On the face of things, plenty of Muslim countries co-exist fine with the rest of the world, but even within their own borders they allow the intolerance to exist and grow. In our own country, people are allowed to expound their views of hatred, protected by freedom of speech.
Variables of complete indifference. In our country alone, a number probably frighteningly large, wouldn't forego the next episode of American Idol, in favor of learning what exactly is happening in the world around them.
And he was correct. There is no more Saddamite army to threaten us or Iraq's neighbors, and we are left only with terrorists to contend with.
Bill Clinton was quite successful in postponing the problem until someone else had to deal with it.
They are not proven lies. Where do you think Zarqawi went to get his leg fixed after he was wounded in Afghanistan?
Of course they would. What makes you think they would not repeat a success if they could?
Hardly. Bush demands verification. Clinton, like Kofi Annan, is satisfied with rhetoric.
aquapub said:When President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier under the banner reading, "Mission Accomplished," he was congratulating the troops on toppling Saddam. Staying true to form, Democrats tote this around as some trophy of Bush embarrassment, knowing full well that he was not claiming the work in Iraq was done.
With all the spin going on by the ever-unreasonable, oblivious tantrum-throwing left, it is a wonder anyone has any clue how well things are going.
Now that we have a president who won't let Al Queda attack us with impunity, something IS being done about Al Queda. They exist now largely in symbolism. Their infrastructure and capabilities are a shadow of what they were.
We have taken out a known terror sponsor and his entire regime-Saddam.
Now, the terrorists are attacking our SOLDIERS over there, instead of our CIVILIANS over here. Soldiers volunteer for that crap and are much better equipped for it.
We stopped Bill Clinton's appeasement policy towards North Korea.
Anyone who could look at all that is going on and deduce that we need to stop standing up to terror or that the overall mission has failed needs to stop getting their news from Michael Moore.
Dem Bruce Lee Styles!! said:Errrr no.... 9/11 was an inside job!
[Moderator mode]
Stop pushing this into the other threads...There is already a thread dedicated to this...Discuss it there...
Bringing this theory into threads where it is not the topic is disruptive and takes away from the original debate...
[/Moderator mode]
ummm...Gandhi>Bush said:Don't be weird. You're not a moderator and everybody knows it. If you need a moderator service or wish to submit a complaint, private message one of us or email us.
cnredd said:ummm...
Read the bottom Gandhi...."Last edited by cnredd : Today at 08:46 AM."
:roflGandhi>Bush said:Ohh, that's pretty funny. My bad.
Major combat is the battle between large organized military forces. The battle against terrorists, guerillas, and common criminals is not major combat.nkgupta80 said:isn't terrorism where our major combat lies?
Lack of resolve in facing an aggressor only encourages the aggressor. Clinton made the same mistake in the 90's that Neville Chamberlain & Co. made in the 30's.alrite lets assume Clinton was postponing the problem of Islamic extremism. What has Bush really done. He attacked one of the most secular of the Muslim countries (yes Iraq was a secular dictatorship), while we appease to some of the most Islamic fundementalist countries in the region, e.g. Saudi Arabia. We appease to Pakistan which probably has one of the largest fundementalist populations. The only thing that I find good was that we got rid of the taliban.. but I think that our reconstruction efforts there are screwing up too.
Saddam's ties with the terrorists were not trivial, and he ran a terrorist state. The fighters we supported in Afghanistan were proxies in the Cold War, and their problem is that they came to overestimate their abilities.where do you think every single f-in terrorist in the last attacks have come from... Suadi Arabia and Pakistan... the countries we are "strategic allies" with. And, instead we go on about the trivial ties Sadaam had with terrorists. Our dealing with the muhajideen in Afghanistan during the 80s was much more supportive of terror than Sadaam's vague dealings.
The terrorists are on the defensive in Iraq, and much too busy to carry on offensive operations. You seem to think that the increased probability of dying uselessly for a losing cause promotes recruitment; I disagree.and how does Iraq keep them from doin so? They can still easily send a few guys here and bomb another bunch of civilians. How do you know we have stopped it. In the end it is our national security, our domestic security, that helps fight terrorist attacks. Iraq just brings more fodder to the terrorists.
Bush is responding properly to a real attack; it is the Bush-bashers who have succumbed to mere rhetoric.and how has Bush not succumbed to mere rhetoric.
128shot said:you find me every reason in the book, factual, that the reason for the war in Iraq makes it worth while, and I won't dismiss it, thats not the problem I have here.
The problem I find is, that Saddam, in the spectrum of this problem, isn't even near close the problem
Pakistan has triend and probably has had some success in giving nuclear secrets to...none other than terrorists!
Many Saudi Royal family members are under the question of weither they're donating millions of dollars to terrorists and weither or not they're giving them weapons.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?