Why don't we call for the president to stop killing IRAQI babies?

[CrystalClear]

CrystalClear,

You make a lot of statements as if it were a person that thinks they know these things firsthand. Have you experienced these things firsthand or are you going by the media or other second hand information?

Experienced what things? You'll need to be a bit more clear.

[Soldier4Christ]

Tell this to the service men and women on the streets in Iraq... it's VERY face to face.

the capability of terrorists in general and those insurgents and terrorists currently fighting in Iraq.

[CrystalClear]

CrystalClear,

I will simply say that I give thanks that the majority of Americans disagree with you completely. I also give thanks that the vast majority of our Armed Forces disagree with you completely.

Needless to say, I disagree with you completely and feel that your thoughts on this issue are extremely naive. A stick your head in the sand and wait until someone comes to get you philosophy is why we had 9-11. A like analogy would be waiting for your child to commit murder before you decide to discipline them.

We can agree to disagree, and that's fine. You just gave me something else to give thanks for.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 100:3  Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

I'm not sure where you get your information from Sir but the majority of Americans DO agree with me. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq

Being a former Marine I think I have a pretty good idea of what our service men and women think and since I still have contact with many I certainly do have first hand knowlege of at least some of their opinions.

I said nothing about sticking my head in the sand in fact I believe I stated that we should be more active with our nations security and that we should send spec ops to take out terrorist cells. We do NOT have the right to invade another country on the off chance that they might do something sometime. You have to remember that Iraq didn't attack us, the Bush administration portrayed them to be dangerous because they MIGHT have WMDs (which we see they don't). The French, the Russians and the Germans  MIGHT have been selling them "things" that they shouldn't have been, so should we invade them as well?

Regardless, all of this is pre-emptive nonsense is a smoke screen to cloud the real issue which is that we invaded Iraq unjustly.

Your analogy is flawed, a better analogy would be punishing your neighbors child because you think he's capable of commiting a crime.

Of course in the end we can disagree which is the beauty of a free society.  

Peace

[Soldier4Christ]

CrystalClear,

I will simply say that I give thanks that the majority of Americans disagree with you completely. I also give thanks that the vast majority of our Armed Forces disagree with you completely.

Needless to say, I disagree with you completely and feel that your thoughts on this issue are extremely naive. A stick your head in the sand and wait until someone comes to get you philosophy is why we had 9-11. A like analogy would be waiting for your child to commit murder before you decide to discipline them.

We can agree to disagree, and that's fine. You just gave me something else to give thanks for.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 100:3  Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

I'm not sure where you get your information from Sir but the majority of Americans DO agree with me. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq

Being a former Marine I think I have a pretty good idea of what our service men and women think and since I still have contact with many I certainly do have first hand knowlege of at least some of their opinions.

I said nothing about sticking my head in the sand in fact I believe I stated that we should be more active with our nations security and that we should send spec ops to take out terrorist cells. We do NOT have the right to invade another country on the off chance that they might do something sometime. You have to remember that Iraq didn't attack us, the Bush administration portrayed them to be dangerous because they MIGHT have WMDs (which we see they don't). The French, the Russians and the Germans  MIGHT have been selling them "things" that they shouldn't have been, so should we invade them as well?

Regardless, all of this is pre-emptive nonsense is a smoke screen to cloud the real issue which is that we invaded Iraq unjustly.

Your analogy is flawed, a better analogy would be punishing your neighbors child because you think he's capable of commiting a crime.

Of course in the end we can disagree which is the beauty of a free society.  

Peace

I, too, am former military. 20+ years. I was there and still, daily, talk to many that are still there.

 

[nChrist]

 ???  I think that someone is in the Twilight Zone.   :D

This was a top issue in a recent election. It was very recent, but it appears that many have already forgotten the results. If the Armed Forces had been the only ones allowed to vote, it would have been a Bush landslide. BUT, we all got to vote, and it was still a strong Bush mandate.

Maybe the news hasn't gotten out yet:

GEORGE BUSH WON!

[Bronzesnake]

CrystalClear quote...

I said nothing about sticking my head in the sand in fact I believe I stated that we should be more active with our nations security and that we should send spec ops to take out terrorist cells.

 So we have the right to invade a foreign country and take out it's citizens?

We do NOT have the right to invade another country on the off chance that they might do something sometime. You have to remember that Iraq didn't attack us, the Bush administration portrayed them to be dangerous because they MIGHT have WMDs (which we see they don't). The French, the Russians and the Germans  MIGHT have been selling them "things" that they shouldn't have been, so should we invade them as well?

 Just goes to show you that just because we may be former, or even at present in the military, we don't necessarily have all the facts.

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html

 The following is a post I made in feply to a person who made the same arguments as you my friend...he never answered my question as to why Saddam would let things go so far if he truely had no WMDs or any interaction with terrorists. Perhaps you can give me a logical explanation as to why he allowed himself to be booted out of his throne, lose his sons and power, and for what? to back his bluff?

 From Bronzesnake on a previous post...
"I disagree. I believe they were there. The entire U.N. Security Council believed they were there. The evidence is overwhelming that the weapons existed. Stockpiles that were tagged by inspectors following the first war disappeared - however, Saddam either couldn't, or wouldn't disclose where they went. Saddam used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. I believe the WMD were shuttled across the boarder and into Syria.

Ask yourself this question...
Why would Saddam keep screwing the inspectors around? Why wouldn't he have simply said, "ok, I don't want to have my country attacked and occupied - I don't want to die or be captured - I like my job with all the riches and killing of anyone who looks at me the wrong way - I really don't have any WMD, so I will allow full access and disclosure."
It would have been that simple Tim. He would still be in power today, his sons would still be alive and free to torture and murder whoever they chose. Saddam, Russia, France, and Germany would still be secretly leeching millions off of the oil for food program.

I am not naive enough to believe Saddam had no connection or interaction with America's most viscous enemies. Saddam had the weapons and the technology, and he most likely handed some of it over to those who would kill your family Tim.
To believe this guy (Saddam) was just an innocent victim (slight exaggeration on my part) is ludicrous. Now the Americans are right beside Iran, and have a fighting force smack dab in the Middle east. That was brilliant strategy.
Would you honestly have attacked Iran first? Any military tactician worth his salt would never have attempted that under the same circumstances Tim. Sorry about your luck Saddam, but you reap what you sew. Goodbye evil dictatorship - hello democracy!

Is it just coincidence that Iran is now backing down from their nuclear ambitions? Do you honestly believe this would have happened if Saddam was still in power and the Americans weren't parked next door?

Dems and Republicans alike were all for the war Tim, and now that the election is on, the Dems are pretending they were clueless."

Regardless, all of this is pre-emptive nonsense is a smoke screen to cloud the real issue which is that we invaded Iraq unjustly.

 What about the twelve years of snubbing the U.N. sanctions and the U.N. resolutions my friend?


 Good talking with you my friend...

Bronzesnake

[Evangelist]

"The real heroes are the men and women who continue to give their time and even their lives, not just for the American way of life, but for the freedom of Iraqi boys and girls, men and women to live free from the tyranny of dictatorship, threats and torture." "These are freedom fighters, young soldiers with bright futures, and they are willing to put everything on the line because something deep inside of them says it's good and it's right and somebody has to draw a line and say, 'Not here, not anymore -- no more imprisonment, no more depraved ideologies, no more intimidation, no more empty promises, no more 9/11s, no more terrorism, period.'"

Capt. Andy Taylor, USAR upon his return from Iraq.

[CrystalClear]

I, too, am former military. 20+ years. I was there and still, daily, talk to many that are still there.

I am sorry for you and those you know... I also thank you for your service.  

[CrystalClear]

 I think that someone is in the Twilight Zone.  

This was a top issue in a recent election. It was very recent, but it appears that many have already forgotten the results. If the Armed Forces had been the only ones allowed to vote, it would have been a Bush landslide. BUT, we all got to vote, and it was still a strong Bush mandate.

Maybe the news hasn't gotten out yet:

GEORGE BUSH WON!

Actually the top issue was how well the Bush campaign fooled a good majority of voters. They did an excellent job of putting down Kerry (not hard to do actually), making soccer moms scared and then telling them only "dubaya" could keep them safe (these are normally Dem voters) and the biggest kudo goes to the way they yanked the Christian vote by positioning themselves as protecting marriage i.e. putting down gays (of course it's a sin but that's another issue) even though he rather quitely in october came out FOR civil unions (did ya miss that?) and claiming conservative values. Completely avoiding the economic mess he's gotten us into and a wide range of other social and political problems.

To your other points, hah. You don't know the truth about what the average soldier thinks.
Bush DIDN'T get a strong mandate. He got 56 million votes out of a voting age population of over 200 million... Kerry got more votes this time than Bush did in 2005 but because of the above reasons Bush still managed to win. It was by no means a whooping victory.

[CrystalClear]

So we have the right to invade a foreign country and take out it's citizens?

You can try but you will not bait me with that. You know exactly what I said.  

Just goes to show you that just because we may be former, or even at present in the military, we don't necessarily have all the facts.

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

...said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, [b]"almost certainly"[/b]

Nuff said.

 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html

Umm... the IAEA was watching these sites, had inspected these sites, had sealed these sites which tells you that they were NOT producing nuclear materials. This article is not good for your argument.

 The following is a post I made in feply to a person who made the same arguments as you my friend...he never answered my question as to why Saddam would let things go so far if he truely had no WMDs or any interaction with terrorists. Perhaps you can give me a logical explanation as to why he allowed himself to be booted out of his throne, lose his sons and power, and for what? to back his bluff?

This has been speculated on since... well, since before the war and most experts agree that Saddam is a meglomaniac for starters and second that the mindset of the middle east is very different from the western mindset. If Saddam backs down without a fight then he is shamed, being a meglomaniac he can't do this. Also if he defies the world community and can hold out until a "Vietnam" mindset grips the US population then he will have stood up to the evil empire and won. His supporters will love him more, his enemies will fear him more and his head gets even bigger.
Perhaps instead of only reading or listening to the news you WANT to hear you should actually look into different sides to get the REAL picture.

 From Bronzesnake on a previous post...
"I disagree. I believe they were there. The entire U.N. Security Council believed they were there. The evidence is overwhelming that the weapons existed. Stockpiles that were tagged by inspectors following the first war disappeared - however, Saddam either couldn't, or wouldn't disclose where they went. Saddam used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. I believe the WMD were shuttled across the boarder and into Syria.

Ask yourself this question...
Why would Saddam keep screwing the inspectors around?
Because he is a nut case and it makes him look powerful.
 Why wouldn't he have simply said, "ok, I don't want to have my country attacked and occupied - I don't want to die or be captured - I like my job with all the riches and killing of anyone who looks at me the wrong way - I really don't have any WMD, so I will allow full access and disclosure."
Because he is a nut case and it makes him look (feel) powerful.

It would have been that simple Tim. He would still be in power today, his sons would still be alive and free to torture and murder whoever they chose. Saddam, Russia, France, and Germany would still be secretly leeching millions off of the oil for food program.

I am not naive enough to believe Saddam had no connection or interaction with America's most viscous enemies. Saddam had the weapons and the technology, and he most likely handed some of it over to those who would kill your family Tim.
Bah, he didn't have squat. The Bush admin admitted this to the press before 9/11. His military was weak and he was more interested in being a mighty ruler in the mid-east.

To believe this guy (Saddam) was just an innocent victim (slight exaggeration on my part) is ludicrous. Now the Americans are right beside Iran, and have a fighting force smack dab in the Middle east. That was brilliant strategy.
Would you honestly have attacked Iran first? Any military tactician worth his salt would never have attempted that under the same circumstances Tim. Sorry about your luck Saddam, but you reap what you sew. Goodbye evil dictatorship - hello democracy!

Yes we are right next door with a fighting force bogged down in a quagmire, undermanned and in a world of trouble. We are having to "backdoor draft" our military just to maintain the current staffing and have NO ability to make any kind of military threat to anyone and IRAN (N.Korea too) know it full well. So is this now the reason we are in Iraq, to threaten Iran? HAH!

Is it just coincidence that Iran is now backing down from their nuclear ambitions? Do you honestly believe this would have happened if Saddam was still in power and the Americans weren't parked next door?

You really have been blinded by the propaganda... try doing a little research before you ramble. Iran is in talks with other nations but have not backed off anything and in fact may be very close to being able to produce enriched uranium.

Dems and Republicans alike were all for the war Tim, and now that the election is on, the Dems are pretending they were clueless."

If you lie to me about a thing and I go along with you on it does that mean I can't change my position once I learn that you lied?

Regardless, all of this is pre-emptive nonsense is a smoke screen to cloud the real issue which is that we invaded Iraq unjustly.

 What about the twelve years of snubbing the U.N. sanctions and the U.N. resolutions my friend?

What about it? Like I said, Saddam is a nut-case.

 Good talking with you my friend...

Bronzesnake


Peace to you!  

[Bronzesnake]

 Crystal...

 Your reason for why Saddam let things go so far is because he's a nut case?

 OK, you got me...I'm convinced.

 Do you know about the strike against his nuclear facilities (which he didn't have  ) by the Israelis?

 I guess all my sources are bad, and I'm a blind fool who only sees what he wants to see - but your sources?? are legit and you are an enlightened being above reproach right? You're not seeing only what you want to see right? You don't only subscribe to sources which correspond to your beliefs right?

 I think you'd better clean your crystal ball...it's a wee bit foggy my friend.

 bronzesnake

[nChrist]

I think you'd better clean your crystal ball...it's a wee bit foggy my friend.

bronzesnake
   

Brother, I think that it's one of those ultra-left crystal balls that is 3/4 blind, and the remaining quarter is confused.   :D

We need to tell the terrorists of this world that they should be nice and trust in them that they will be. Them killing us around the world and coming to our own soil to kill us should simply be ignored. After all, it might make them mad if we tried to do anything about it. Maybe we misunderstood when they declared war on us and swore to kill us. The deaths of Americans around the world and in our own country are just coincidence. We should all be smart enough to figure this out and know that everything is our fault. Let's just stick our head in the sand and wait for them to come get us. After all, it would be much smarter to fight them on our own soil while they are killing our innocent men, women, and children. Who knows, maybe we would enjoy living like Israel and having no expectation of safety or security any minute of any day. On top of everything else, this would be politically correct and would finally make the ultra liberals happy.

NOT!!

NOPE! - The ultra-liberals would lose the freedom to run their mouths and many other freedoms that others paid for. In the meantime, they will stay busy bad-mouthing those who preserve their freedoms. If they stay busy enough, they can become poster children for Michael Moore.    ;D

Tom

[CrystalClear]

I think you'd better clean your crystal ball...it's a wee bit foggy my friend.

bronzesnake
   

Brother, I think that it's one of those ultra-left crystal balls that is 3/4 blind, and the remaining quarter is confused.  

We need to tell the terrorists of this world that they should be nice and trust in them that they will be. Them killing us around the world and coming to our own soil to kill us should simply be ignored. After all, it might make them mad if we tried to do anything about it. Maybe we misunderstood when they declared war on us and swore to kill us. The deaths of Americans around the world and in our own country are just coincidence. We should all be smart enough to figure this out and know that everything is our fault. Let's just stick our head in the sand and wait for them to come get us. After all, it would be much smarter to fight them on our own soil while they are killing our innocent men, women, and children. Who knows, maybe we would enjoy living like Israel and having no expectation of safety or security any minute of any day. On top of everything else, this would be politically correct and would finally make the ultra liberals happy.

NOT!!

NOPE! - The ultra-liberals would lose the freedom to run their mouths and many other freedoms that others paid for. In the meantime, they will stay busy bad-mouthing those who preserve their freedoms. If they stay busy enough, they can become poster children for Michael Moore.    

Tom

Well first of all I am not "ultra-liberal". Just because I don't believe this war WITH IRAQ was justified nor righteous doesn't make me ultra liberal. I served my country, lost 3 friends in Beruit 1 in Desert Storm and have so far been fortunate enough not to have lost either of my 5 friends in this war. Just because I am not a fundamental doesn't invalidate my thoughts and shame on those who would try to put me down for it. I have voted republican and democrate depending on what the candidate had to offer the country.

That said, if the only thing you can do is repeat your points which have already been rebutted and make personal attacks then I will simply ignore your replies on this topic.

I saw Fahrenheit 911 and while it certainly does have a very leftist leaning that doesn't invalidate the facts that are presented. You have to be appauled at some of those facts.

[CrystalClear]

Crystal...

 Your reason for why Saddam let things go so far is because he's a nut case?

 OK, you got me...I'm convinced.

 Do you know about the strike against his nuclear facilities (which he didn't have  ) by the Israelis?

 I guess all my sources are bad, and I'm a blind fool who only sees what he wants to see - but your sources?? are legit and you are an enlightened being above reproach right? You're not seeing only what you want to see right? You don't only subscribe to sources which correspond to your beliefs right?

 I think you'd better clean your crystal ball...it's a wee bit foggy my friend.

 bronzesnake

Since I shut down the rest of your arguments I'll close this one as well  

In 1981 Iraq was building a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT to provide energy. Israel FEARED (thought and was afraid) that Saddam MIGHT TRY to divert enriched unranium to START (not in proccess) an atomic weapons program. The action was condemed by the UN as an act of aggression since Iraq was a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the International Atomic Energy Agency had recently inspected the plant, which had been constructed by the French, and found nothing amiss.

Sorry friend but you really are a victim of propaganda.  

Peace

[Bronzesnake]

Crystal quote...

Since I shut down the rest of your arguments I'll close this one as well  

 Hey, if that makes you feel better.

Crystal quote...

In 1981 Iraq was building a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT to provide energy. Israel FEARED (thought and was afraid) that Saddam MIGHT TRY to divert enriched unranium to START (not in proccess) an atomic weapons program. The action was condemed by the UN as an act of aggression since Iraq was a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the International Atomic Energy Agency had recently inspected the plant, which had been constructed by the French, and found nothing amiss.

 Let's get away from your revisionist history, and look at the real facts my friend...

 Iraq established its nuclear program in the late 1960s when it acquired its first nuclear facilites. Later, in the 1970s, Iraq was unsuccessful in negotiations with France to purchase a plutonium production reactor similar to the one used in France's nuclear weapons program. In addition to the reactor, Iraq also wanted to purchase the reporcessing plant needed to recover the plutonium produced in the reactor. Even through these requests were denied, France agreed to build a research reactor along with associated laboratories. Iraq built the Osiraq 40 megawatt light-water nuclear reactor at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Center near Baghdad with French assistance. Approximately 27.5 pounds of 93% U-235 was supplied to Iraq by France for use in the Osiraq research reactor.

The reactor was a type of French reactor named after Osiris, the Egyptian God of the dead. The French renamed the one being built in Iraq, "Osiraq" to blend the name Osiris with that of the recipient state, Iraq. French orthography then made it "Osirak." Iraq called the reactor "Tammuz," after the month in the Arabic calendar when the Ba'th party came to power in a 1968 coup.

Iraq began to expand its nuclear sector in the 1970's, but made little progress in the early 1980's, when most of its energy and attention were focused on the war against Iran. In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq. On 30 September 1980 a a pair of Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad, also bombed the Osiraq reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.

When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention of producing weapons at Osiraq, the Israeli government decided to attack. According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Others estimated at that time that Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two. Prime Minister Menachem Begin felt military action was the only remedy. Begin feared that his party would lose the next election, and he feared that the opposition party would not preempt prior to the production of the first Iraqi nuclear bomb.

 My friend...In some of your posts Saddam is a nut case megalomaniac - but now he seems to be a gentle, innocent man who simply wanted to supply electricity to his beloved people! That's a joke!

 Crystal quote...
 

The action was condemed by the UN as an act of aggression since Iraq was a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

 Oh ya, that's a legitimate condemnation!
Gee, I wonder which U.N. member states would condemn an action taken by Israel? hmmm.

Bronzesnake