The Reagans

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
That is a good point, but I still don't think they refer to any engagements officially as a war unless Congress declares. Although, I may be wrong. During the coverage of both Gulf conflicts, the term "War" was used repeatedly.

Rob

I edited as you posted. Although it has not declared a "war," Congress has given Bush the authority to have a war with Iraq as does the War Powers Act.

IMO - no matter what you call it - it is a war to me if our soldiers are there and getting killed.

May they come home soon!

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
At this point it would be a huge mistake to leave Iraq in the turmoil that it is in now. Can you imagine what Germany or even Japan would be like if we left just a few months after the end of WWII?

There has to be a rebuilding and stabilization period. They have to get the country to a point where it is able to operate on its own. I think they are making strides towards that. Just keep in perspective that we had a presence in Japan and Germany for YEARS after the Second World War. Yes it is a different situation, but at the same time, the goals are the same. To leave now would go against everything that was fought for.

Even Bush said the attacks would continue. Fundamentalists from Jordan, Iran, Syria, and other surrounding countries with no particular affiliation to Hussein have taken the opportunity of the war to sneak into Iraq and attack US soldiers. These fighters are part of Al Quida and other militant groups. I think attacks by Suddam loyalists will go down but these other groups will stay active.

This is a big deal. Not often are genocidal dictators taken alive. The trial will be interesting.

Rob

I never said to leave Iraq a mess; I said that the UN should take over. The US is, IMO, not the country to rebuild Iraq for obvious reasons.

It is not our country and we have no right to force anything upon the Iraqi people when it comes to their government. If Bush was a truthful man, he would've given the country back to the Iraqi's when they wanted it back. I remember months ago they wanted to install an Islamic government, which makes perfect sense when you consider that over 60% of Iraq ia populated by Shiite Muslims. But we won't do that because we have a vested monetary interest in Iraq.

And I seem to remember many of the war protesters (myself included) screaming about the effects of any action in Iraq from fundamentalist groups and surrounding countries. But no one listened, they called us nuts and screamed we should go after Saddam because of 9/11. And, sorry, I don't believe that Al Qaeda has anything to do with this in Iraq, that's just a untrue.

Bush was trying to save face when he said the attacks would continue because other dimwit government employees from his staff said that the attacks would stop outright now that they have Saddam! But, hey, at least Bush told the truth for once.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
IMO - no matter what you call it - it is a war to me if our soldiers are there and getting killed.

And if innocent Iraqi's are being killed because of our imperialism.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
And if innocent Iraqi's are being killed because of our imperialism.

Imperialism Shrimperialism

I do not agree that we are imperialistic in this case, but do agree with the spirit of your statement that when people are killed in conflict, it is a war.

Also, I heard on the news yesterday where they found documents indicating M. Atta, allegely the lead organizer of the 9/11 attacks, was trained in Iraq and had connections with SH. I am uncertain if this has been verified, but the documents are there and they commend M. Atta's skills (YIPES!! ). I will try to find out more about this. Note: I heard this in passing - it could be an old story for all I know.

Also, I read where they found secret papers in Saddam Hussein's hiding place that revealed he had regular contact with the leader of the terrorists who oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq. Go here for the article
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/13596.htm

The plot thickens.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

The only reason I have heard anyone compare Iraq to WWII (in terms of the conflict itself) is because in both instances we were attacked. Rob

Iraq attacked us? Could you elaborate?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Iraq attacked us? Could you elaborate?

Well, they did attack our ally (sp.?) Kuwait and the current action stems from events brought on by that.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Iraq attacked us? Could you elaborate?

...*sigh*...I have to explain everything!

By "attacked" I mean 9\11. People who do compare Iraq to WWII are implicating Iraq in the 9\11 attacks. I am not one of those people who would make such a comparison because I haven't seen any direct evidence as such. Although the new Atta info will be interesting to look at.

We now resume you're regularly scheduled programming....

Rob

[Rob67]

A humorous article relating to earlier discussions of Bush=Hitler which I happened across. Thought I would share. It gave me a chuckle.

Rob



The Extreme Sport of Insult
John Leo
Townhall.com
December 15, 2003


The hard left decided long ago that George W. Bush is Hitler. In maddened corners of the Internet and at swastika-choked antiwar marches, Bush is shown with a Nazi uniform or a Hitler mustache. But does everyone on the far left believe this? Not at all. Some think that Dick Cheney is the real Hitler (he commands America’s “storm-trooper legions,” said former right-wing crackpot and current left-wing crackpot Lyndon LaRouche). Others think Don Rumsfeld is Hitler (both men favored mountain_top retreats, the Action Coalition of Taos points out). These comparisons are still being argued. Air Force veteran Douglas Herman, writing an op-ed piece in Florida, says Rumsfeld is more like Goering, since both men were fighter pilots, while LaRouche decided that Cheney isn’t just Hitler -- he’s Lady Macbeth as well.

Many on the left believe that either Ari Fleischer or Karl Rove is Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Or maybe Richard Perle is related to Goebbels. The September issue of Vanity Fair suggested that Perle could be Goebbels’s twin (side by side photos, headlined “Separated at birth?”).

Another vexing question about Rove: Is he Goebbels or Josef Mengele? Goebbels is the top choice among antiwar commentators, but a writer to the MetaFilter site said: “Karl Rove made up stories about John McCain, just as Josef Mengele conducted medical experiments on children in Auschwitz.”

One Internet site referred to Tom Ridge as Heinrich Himmler; another calls him head of “Homeland Security, the new Gestapo.” Colin Powell is Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, according to a posting on the Democratic Underground site. And Frank Rich of the New York Times managed to work a famous Nazi filmmaker into the mix. He wrote that the recent Showtime docudrama, DC 9/11: Time of Crisis, was so pro-Bush that it is “best viewed as a fitting memorial to Leni Riefenstahl.”

The common charge that Bush is Mussolini is controversial -- many leftists insist that the Mussolini role is reserved for Tony Blair, the junior partner of Bush’s Hitler. Cartoonist Aaron McGruder said on TV that Condoleezza Rice is a murderer but failed to give her any Nazi designation -- a big mistake by prevailing standards. On the same show, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said, “I generally agree with [McGruder] 100 percent,” but he too failed to offer a good Nazi comparison.

Paul Wolfowitz is a challenge to lefty analysts, some of whom think his intellectual background is fascist (Jeffrey Steinberg in Executive Intelligence Review), while others believe he has Bolshevik roots (he is Trotsky’s ghost, according to Canadian journalist Jeet Heer).

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, they did attack our ally (sp.?) Kuwait and the current action stems from events brought on by that.

No hiding the ball.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No hiding the ball.

Who Me??????

I am sure I do not know what you mean

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
...*sigh*...I have to explain everything!

By "attacked" I mean 9\11. People who do compare Iraq to WWII are implicating Iraq in the 9\11 attacks. I am not one of those people who would make such a comparison because I haven't seen any direct evidence as such. Although the new Atta info will be interesting to look at.

We now resume you're regularly scheduled programming....

Rob

I was just hoping that you had some factual basis for your opinion. The United States was not attacked by Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

The most frightening picture of Ann Coulter yet:

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm


I didn't even recognize her. Has she been eating?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I was just hoping that you had some factual basis for your opinion. The United States was not attacked by Iraq.

I agree with you in that the US was not attacked directly by Iraq. At least there is no evidence thus far that Hussein backed the Hijackers.


And by the way, since when are facts important to Liberals??? Did I miss something??

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
I agree with you in that the US was not attacked directly by Iraq. At least there is no evidence thus far that Hussein backed the Hijackers.


And by the way, since when are facts important to Liberals??? Did I miss something??

In case you haven't noticed, every assertion that I have made concerning my political opinions have been fact based.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The most frightening picture of Ann Coulter yet:

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm


I didn't even recognize her. Has she been eating?

She finally earns the name Coultergeist.