liberals.... - Page 18

dissention · #**256** 06-28-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, you are saying you were for the war in Afganistan

AND you were for it immediately and not giving them a chance to produce OBL first

I was for some type of military action immediately, but not two months later. I was opposed to going in November. And if you think they would've produced OBL, I want to know what is really in your Kool-Aid.

strandinthewind · #**257** 06-28-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

One step forward and two steps back...

Sure it disrupted things, and maybe it weakened things. Hell, when I lose electricity during a thunderstorm it disrupts things! But this entire situation called for much more finesse. We alienated nearly all the countries who empathized with us after 9/11 when we invaded Iraq, including Muslim nations. We went forward with this cowboy attitude that "We don't need nobody", even when they were all screaming at us not to invade.

Al-Q wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, but they sure are now, and with a bunch more people who hate us than they had before.

Once again, I agree!!!

AND - for that alone, W should be removed from office.

gldstwmn · #**258** 06-28-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Exactly. I cannot believe we are not putting him in jail. It is our own version of Saudi Arabia's all if forgiven if you terrorists turn yourselves in before June 30 - I mean PUULLEEZZEEEEE.

But, I gotta say, if it saved lives by not invading Libya - I am not that opposed to it. I just do not think he can be trusted.

For all you Reagan fans- two weeks ago Mr. Ghadafi (or Qadaffi depending on which news service you use) said he was "sorry Reagan never stood trial for bombing in Libya."
This piece of crap blew up a plane over Lockerbie Scotland killing 270 people and now Bushco is establishing diplomatic relations with them. Guess why? THEY'VE GOT OIL.

dissention · #**259** 06-28-2004, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Without trying to sound facetious, it was like they were organizing a big game of Hide 'N Seek.

"Ok, Osama, you try to hide while we count to a billion! Ready?! One... two... three................"

Exactly.

If Jason thinks that we shoud've given the Afghani government two months to produce OBL, that's just stupid and doesn't merit a comment.

They gave him a running start so that he could get away and they could focus their attention on Iraq without having to deal with him immediately.

strandinthewind · #**260** 06-28-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I was for some type of military action immediately, but not two months later. I was opposed to going in November. And if you think they would've produced OBL, I want to know what is really in your Kool-Aid.

I think W was trying to follow some sort of decorum and an attempt to get world approval. I think the first week or so was spent to make sure OBL did it and build the coalition, which took proof. Once they determined that it was OBL and they had the coalition, I think we should have sent Hell's Wrath there by way of five times as may troops and missles and destoroyed anything resembling AL-Q. But, then again, that might have been a bit too extreme

I just wanna know why we could never find him when we have all this surveillance equipment?

dissention · #**261** 06-28-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think W was trying to follow some sort of decorum and an attempt to get world approval. I think the first week or so was spent to make sure OBL did it and build the coalition, which took proof. Once they determined that it was OBL and they had the coalition, I think we should have sent Hell's Wrath there by way of five times as may troops and missles and destoroyed anything resembling AL-Q. But, then again, that might have been a bit too extreme

I just wanna know why we could never find him when we have all this surveillance equipment?

Like his attempts to get approval for Iraq, eh?

I just want to know why they invaded more than two months after the attacks. A week or two is understandable, but not more than two months. That's just absurd.

strandinthewind · #**262** 06-28-2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Exactly.

If Jason thinks that we shoud've given the Afghani government two months to produce OBL, that's just stupid and doesn't merit a comment.

They gave him a running start so that he could get away and they could focus their attention on Iraq without having to deal with him immediately.

That is utter BS and you know it. If the US had responded on 9/12 alone and with full force against Afganistan, it would have been WWIII and you know it. Also, don't you think it was kind of okay to try and use diplomacy to save the thousands of innocent civilians not to mention out troops who died their. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but almost all intelligence indicates OBL was still in Afganistan when we went there. So, it not like he fled to another country in the meantime.

gldstwmn · #**263** 06-28-2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Exactly.

If Jason thinks that we shoud've given the Afghani government two months to produce OBL, that's just stupid and doesn't merit a comment.

They gave him a running start so that he could get away and they could focus their attention on Iraq without having to deal with him immediately.

Imagine what he could spill about the Bush boys. No, he's very low on their priority list.

strandinthewind · #**264** 06-28-2004, 10:11 PM

Actually, I cannot believe you are even admtting we should have invaded Afganistan.

strandinthewind · #**265** 06-28-2004, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Imagine what he could spill about the Bush boys. No, he's very low on their priority list.

That is estranged brother (one of like 100) gave W $50,000 through a broker as an investment in a business in 1977

gldstwmn · #**266** 06-28-2004, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

But we gave Saddam months and months to prove he didn't have WMDs and you still think we should have given the UN weapon inspectors more time?

Yes. The UN inspectors didn't find anything and they weren't finished yet.

gldstwmn · #**267** 06-28-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That is estranged brother (one of like 100) gave W $50,000 through a broker as an investment in a business in 1977

A few posts ago it was 800. Make up your mind. By the way, how did the Libya thing play on Fox News tonight? Did it play at all?

strandinthewind · #**268** 06-28-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

But we gave Saddam months and months to prove he didn't have WMDs and you still think we should have given the UN weapon inspectors more time?

Actually, we gave SH over 11 years. But, I agree, I think it would have been better to let the final inspectors do their job even though SH would never have cooperated. Again, it was his burden to show he destroyed the WMD, not play hide and seek with us. But, I think that time owuld have allowed us to build a larger coalition, better ready our troops, and perhaps figure out a way to remove him in some other fashion like political pressure from the neighboring Arab states who allegedly hated him. In the end, however, I fear the only way to remove him, which Clinton, Kerry, essentially all of Congress, most of the world's major powers, and the UN all agreed needed to be done.