11-11-2004, 09:07 PM #1
the cost of the Iraq war on America...
11-12-2004, 12:56 AM #2
give me ten minutes worth of money on that counter and i'm set for more than one life!
11-12-2004, 01:07 AM #3
That's xactly how AlQueda wants it.......go broke trying to fight the phantom terrrorist.
11-12-2004, 01:15 AM #4Originally Posted by Badgerman
The cost in cash is nothing compared to what we have set in motion worldwide.
11-12-2004, 01:31 AM #5Originally Posted by rocco78
Yeah, the US is baking a nice problem they'll be facing far beyond any of our lives. Way to go...
11-12-2004, 01:44 AM #6Originally Posted by dean1233
Saddam attacked us
11-12-2004, 02:14 AM #7Originally Posted by dean1233
........the Iraqis will be free to roam their destroyed cities......
they'll be so happy....... .........
11-12-2004, 02:14 AM #8
11-12-2004, 02:16 AM #9Originally Posted by Badgerman
11-12-2004, 08:56 AM #10Originally Posted by Badgerman
11-12-2004, 09:01 AM #11Originally Posted by rocco78
you're the second person to try and bring christians in as some sort of antagonist to the war. are you saying this because Bush is a christian? So if it was Kerry that started a war on terrorism, you'd say this is a catholic holy war?
11-12-2004, 09:21 AM #12Originally Posted by max2extreme
11-12-2004, 09:33 AM #13
I guess my memory is suspect. Apparently, the word crusade was not in
the name of the operation, but Bush frequently referred to a "Crusade
against terrorism." The reaction was the same. The campaign was called
"Infinite Justice" which also pissed off the Muslims.
> After nine months of behaving as if the US could go it alone internationally, the Administration is scrambling to accommodate the concerns of its allies, real and potential. Which means, among other things, that it is suddenly having to watch its language.
> A week ago, the White House was forced to apologize for the President's description of the campaign against terrorism as a "crusade," when it was pointed out that the word still evokes unpleasant historical memories among Muslim nations. (The Arabic translation of crusade, "al-hamalat as-salibiyya," literally means "campaign of the cross," a connection that English-speakers are apt to overlook, particularly if their Latin is shaky.)
> Then the administration blundered again when it dubbed the campaign Operation Infinite Justice, a name that seemed to some Muslims to promise what only Allah could deliver. The Pentagon quickly redesignated the buildup Operation Enduring Freedom, a name that manages to be both grandiose and dangerously ambiguous -- you can be sure that some parties will see an interest in translating it so that "freedom" comes out as the object rather than the subject of the verb.
11-12-2004, 09:42 AM #14
George Bush was faced with information that Iraq had WMD. He had to decide to either wait for the UN, allowing Iraq more time to hide, deliver to down town NY and detonate, or to disperse the WMD to other nations, he chose to act.
People think that Iraq didn’t have any links to terrorist, how quickly we have forgotten, the statements made by Saddam and his government,
"[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world."
Iraq News Agency, January 30, 1991 (State-controlled)
"[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999
"[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
Had Bush waited, with the information that he had at the time, and there had been an attack in America with WMD from Iraq, where would America now stand on the idea of War in Iraq?
How would President Bush be viewed by history, if he had stood aside and let something like that happen?
Keep in mind, that from what I understand, the intelligence that was available, from Great Brittan, from Russia, and our own sources, said that they indeed had chemical weapons, and that they were working on nuclear weapons.
This helps me to understand the decision he had to make, and helps me understand why we went to war.
Terrorists everywhere, must know one thing about America, if you threaten America, we are going to overreact, because the cost of under reacting is too high.
11-12-2004, 09:45 AM #15
Well, of course when most people talk about 'the crusades'...yes they may be referring to the christian "holy crusades" to retake thier holy land.
But a "crusade" does NOT mean its for religious reasons. The word crusade is a synonym for campaign. Crusade is a campaign, or movement for a cause or against an abuse.
1: exert oneself continuously, vigorously, or obtrusively to gain an end or engage in a crusade for a certain cause or person; be an advocate for; "The liberal party pushed for reforms"; "She is crusading for women's rights". (taken from dictionary.com)
I will give you that crusade can mean "a holy war". But just because the term crusade is said, doesnt mean you assume the 2nd definition of holy war. Have you ever seen bush or anyone say anything like "we are bombing you in the name of God; we are fighting the muslim (i use muslim because most of the terrorist claim to be muslim) people because they act against our christian god" or any such comments? No. This has nothing to do with religion.
11-12-2004, 09:47 AM #16Originally Posted by Bigen12
11-12-2004, 09:49 AM #17Originally Posted by hung-solo
This here also proves that the US has no thoughts of this being a religious war by changing names when it realizes what it means to different people.
Crusade-taken back because some people still consider it a 'holy war' term.
Infinite Justice-taken back because Muslims took this as a religious term about Allah (which I had no clue about Infinite Justice and the Islam religion..if someone had suggested this as a name to me for this operation, i would have been all for it because I too wouldnt have known it had an "islam meaning")
thus eventually, enduring freedom, which the US is trying to give the iraqi people...
11-12-2004, 09:56 AM #18Originally Posted by dean1233
i could say "ive got logs showing activity from this IP address that indicates attempts to hack a military website. Ive located where this IP is physically coming from" 4 weeks later, I get the police to raid this address...oh well no computer. Does that mean it wasnt there? No. It must have been moved.
just because no WMG's were found, doesnt mean they werent there.
I agree with Bigen.
11-12-2004, 10:12 AM #19Originally Posted by dean1233
Is calling names your only method of debate?
I have noted on several instances, this seems to be your favorite tactic.
If you have any proof to back up your assertions, please post it, if not please clarify that your statement was simply your opinion.
11-12-2004, 10:37 AM #20
11-12-2004, 10:40 AM #21Originally Posted by max2extreme
11-12-2004, 10:41 AM #22
11-12-2004, 10:41 AM #23
Last edited by dean1233; 11-12-2004 at 10:44 AM.
11-12-2004, 10:48 AM #24
Thats approximatley $400 bucks they could have given to each and every american citizen instead of going to war.....i personally could use $400 bucks right now for my next cycle which is more important to me than WMD (World Massacres and Destruction)
11-12-2004, 11:13 AM #25Originally Posted by dean1233
I should have clarified,
If you have any reputable proof to back up your assertions other than some conspiracy theory sites, that twist statements to fit their view, please post it, if not please clarify that your statement was simply your opinion.
Quoting from the Conspiracy Theory Site that you referenced.
“It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.” 15 May 2001, Powell
But Powell wasn't the only senior administration official telling the truth before the truth became highly inconvenient. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer (an anonymous reader sent me the full transcript from Lexis-Nexis). Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:
Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.
Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."
Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
King doesn't think to ask Rice, if Hussein hasn't been getting arms and his forces weren't rebuilt after the 1991 Gulf War, why Bush considers him a threat.
11-12-2004, 11:22 AM #26
Give it up, both Powel and Rice said in their own words, in plain... white bread american language so you can understand... that Iraq was not a threat.
Originally Posted by Bigen12
11-12-2004, 11:37 AM #27Originally Posted by dean1233
They state that he isn't a threat to his NEIGHBORS, due to his lack of conventional weapons, not that they didn’t have WMD, you and that conspiracy theory website that you have quoted from are twisting that to mean that he didn’t have WMD. You are both wrong.
11-12-2004, 11:38 AM #28Originally Posted by dean1233
notice how they are leaving office to hahahahah like the others.. they know something the american people dont know for the most part.. they dont want to get flushed down the toilet of history.. smart people
11-12-2004, 11:41 AM #29Originally Posted by Bigen12
not... a .... threat.
11-12-2004, 12:01 PM #30Originally Posted by dean1233
Powell states that he has WMD's, just no form of delivery, such as missile or airplane.
I note further that both quotes are from before September 11th 2001, Powell’s was in February 2001, and Rice’s was in July 2001.
I hope we can all agree that after September 11th 2001 the definition of “threat” changed drastically.
I believe that the President wasn’t worried about Saddam delivering a WMD with a missile or dropping from an airplane. I believe that he was worried about someone driving a chemical weapon or dirty nuclear weapon, into a major metropolitan area and detonating it.
11-12-2004, 08:26 PM #31Originally Posted by Bigen12
11-13-2004, 05:50 AM #32Originally Posted by dean1233
Originally Posted by dean1233
Again this is your opinion,
All I have done is give my opinion,
Originally Posted by dean1233
Originally Posted by dean1233
Does this make you feel better, to call names, are you so eaten up with hate?
Do you call everyone “stupid” that disagrees with you?
I have a problem with my children doing the same thing, they have not matured enough to describe their feelings, instead they call names, perhaps in time you will mature enough to do the same. Until then you have your Canadian opinion, and I have my opinion being an American Citizen.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)