We have a lot of conservatives here... is it time for Bush/Cheney to resign?

[Dave M]

Fascinating . . . but what's your point?

And why is the subject being changed?

My point is that we are handing our rights over to the government, and the executive branch is tilting the checks and balances in their favor for what amounts to an overblown threat. In the last 20 years, how many Americans, here or abroad, have been killed by terrorist actions? 5,000? Three quarters of those were in a single attack. That many people die every month on the roads. Is each one of those deaths tragic? Of course. Is it the greatest threat our country faces? Debatable.

9/11/01 did not signal a new threat from terrorists. They were always out there, trying. They just found a new and novel way to attack us. It is my opinion that we should be plugging the holes in our defenses (within the framework of the Consitution), not systematically dismantling foreign governments. The Afghanistan war is excepted. I believe that was necessary.

I believe every American should be willing to die in a terroist attack before they are willing to give up liberties and freedoms that make those attacks possible. However, I think we can have border security, airline security, port security, legal searches and electronic evesdropping without stepping all over the Constitution to do it. I believe this administration has overblown the threat from Islamic radicals in order to have its way. It has labeled detractors as unpatriotic and unamerican to quiet them.

I was watching a news conference the other day when George W. Bush said we have to continue the war in Iraq "because there are people willing to kill men, women and children to further a political adgenda." I laughed out loud! Isn't that exactly what we've been doing in Iraq?

[Dave M]

Oh, okay.

The original topic was "should Bush/Cheney resign," with the debate to be based upon "the merits of the argument" of a dithyramb (regarding the Libby commutation) penned by a low-ratings liberal moonbat (Oops, opinions about moonbats are off-limits. The jury will kindly disregard.).

Yet "the topic was not changed by him [i.e., the initiator of this discussion] pointing out that terrorism is a low risk way of death."

So, as I understand the now-morphed question, we should just "get over" the deaths of more than 3000 of our fellow citizens (mostly civilians) during several unprovoked, surprise attacks occurring in major cities located on the mainland of the United States.

Hmmm. Let's see where this line of reasoning takes us:

On December 7, 1941, approximately 2400 people (mostly military) were killed during the unprovoked surprise attack upon the American Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Apparently, we should have just "gotten over" this. After all, Hawaii wasn't even a state (nor were Guam, The Philippines, Wake Island, a couple islands off Alaska, and other American territories and possessions that were attacked). Besides, these were "just" military deaths.

And wasn't it our fault anyway because President Franklin Roosevelt had cut off Japan's oil supply?

On December 8, 1941, the war-monger Roosevelt asked Congress for a declaration of war against – but only against – Imperial Japan.

On December 11, after Germany and Italy had declared war against the United States (and were torpedoing American ships just off the East Coast), that over-reacting, bloody-handed, racist tyrant (who by then had ordered the unconstitutional internment in concentration camps of American citizens of Japanese ancestry) asked for and got yet another declaration of war, this time against Germany and Italy.

Why? Neither Germany nor Italy attacked us on December 7. It's obvious that Roosevelt caused 12/7 to deflect attention from his mishandling of the domestic economy.

Pearl Harbor was an inside job!!!!

During the next three-and-a-half years, 400,000 American military personnel were killed and many, many more were wounded fighting Mr. Roosevelt's war.

All this fuss over such a trivial matter as a few thousand soldiers and sailors being killed and some obsolescent ships being sunk in some far-distant place. So what? For everyone else back home there was a low risk of death. And didn't we deserve to be attacked since it was all our fault in the first place?

Was it worth it?
____________________________

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, author William L. Shirer wonders how the world could dismiss Hitler's intentions when he had made his plans very clear in Mein Kampf. Seeing today how the current threat is so easily dismissed by some, I can understand.

It has been my experience that when liberals are losing the argument, they either change the subject, lapse into irrelevant histrionics, or try to end the debate with personal invectives. Nothing I've seen so far on this discussion thread changes that perception.

12/7/41 was an act of war by a sovereign nation. We cut off their oil supply because they were already at war with several of our allies. Declaring war was an appropriate response. Every one of those 400,000 deaths was for a noble cause.

9/11/01 was simply the latest attack in a decades long battle with Islamic extremists. It was not the first, nor will it likely be the last, attack against our nation. Their is no country to declare war on. When Bush said we'd go after any country that harbored terrorists, I was all for it! Afghanistan was hence an appropriate war. The problem is Bush is not following up on his promise. Instead of going after Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or any of the other countries that then or now harbors terrorists, he went after Iraq; which had no known ties to those involved in the 9/11 plot. The war in Iraq was a pointless war. We controlled 75% on the countries skies through no-fly zones and had defacto control over the rest. U.N. inspectors were in the country (when Hussein wasn't kicking them out) and we had military personnel in Iraq and surrounding nations. Iraq could do nothing without us knowing about it and immediately responding. They were not an immediate threat to us or their neighbors. Sure you can say a brutal dictator was removed from power, but how many others remain in the world? I can name a dozen countries where genocide is taking place at the government level. Why aren't we there too? Iraq has become nothing more than a training ground for terrorists and a rallying for those who would hate us. We've got evidence tha Iran is either contributing weapons to the fight or outright attacking us and we can do nothing about it because our military is already stretched too thin. What if another 9/11 came now and we could pinpoint a country as the culprit? How would we respond militarily outside of airstrikes? We can't.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

My point is that we are handing our rights over to the government, and the executive branch is tilting the checks and balances in their favor for what amounts to an overblown threat. In the last 20 years, how many Americans, here or abroad, have been killed by terrorist actions? 5,000? Three quarters of those were in a single attack. That many people die every month on the roads. Is each one of those deaths tragic? Of course. Is it the greatest threat our country faces? Debatable.

So how many innocent non combatant US citizens have to be killed before it becomes a threat that we need to act on? What is the number for you to take action? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? What is your threshold?

I was watching a news conference the other day when George W. Bush said we have to continue the war in Iraq "because there are people willing to kill men, women and children to further a political adgenda." I laughed out loud! Isn't that exactly what we've been doing in Iraq?

You just accused American soldiers of killing men, women, and children in Iraq. Is that what you really wanted to say?

American soldiers are targeting any Islamic radical who is trying to kill anyone whether it is a US soldier or and Iraqi civilian. Islamic radicals are targeting ANYONE whether it is a man, woman, child, US soldier, European reporter, you, me, whatever. They don't care who gets killed. If it happens to be them or one of their friends it's OK to them because they are now a martyr. You can't see the difference in these two?

[Dave M]

Okay Roger, here ya go: my response to the 23 reasons we went to Iraq:

Number 1 seems more like a statement than a reason. It says we went in 1990 so we're going again, even though there is a huge difference in the declared intentions of each war.

Number 2 says they agreed in 1991 to end all WMD programs. Here is where the intelligence somes into play. If there was indeed intelligence that said they hadn't done this, they I could support this reason. I don't know if that's the case because I'm not priy to the intelligence. However, even if the intelligence was there, I think the president could have given the diplomatic approach more time. And dozens of countries are actively searching for or have a WMD program.

Number 3 says they had more WMD capability than we first thought. If that's indeed true than I can support number 3, given the diplomatic approach had time to work.

Number 4: Iraq attempted to thwart inspections. Same response as 3.

Number 5: I'm not sure how Iraq could be considered much of a threat to international peace and stability when it was covered in no-fly zones and was surrounded by US military. Possession of WMD does not mean inent to use them (and yes I'm aware that Hussein had used them in the past, but so have we).

Number 6: The intelligence thing again. What did it really say? I don't know. Did the Bush administration cherry-pick the intelligence they showed to Congress? I don't know.

Number 7: Could be said about a number of countries in the world.

Number 8: Could be said about the U.S.

Number 9: The '93 attack on Bush was responded to at the time. The shots at our planes could be dealt with at the time they happen by destroying the missle sites.

Number 10: This one's hairy. Reports have shown this not to be the case. But even if they believed in good faith for it o be true, al qaeda has members in dozens of countries. When do the wars start?

Number 11: Could be said about dozens of countries.

Number 12: 9/11/01 had nothing to do with WMD. There were no WMDs involved on 9/11. WMDs have always been a threat.

Number 13: All for it, but again this could be said about a lot of countries. Why not live up to the pledge to go after them all?

Most of the rest seem to say that because we are authorized to use force, we should. Just because you can does not mean you should. Remember Roger, I never said Bush lied. I was not privy to the intelligence that he had; although other sources (British among them) seem to indicate that the intelligence was not nearly as convincing as we had been led to believe. One thing's for sure though, he made his father look like a genius for not going to Baghdad in '91.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

...he went after Iraq; which had no known ties to those involved in the 9/11 plot.

That is absolutely not true. I have said this before and I will say it again one more time. We found a Boeing 707 fuselage in the north east section of Iraq that Al Quada was using to train terrorist how to take over a plane. We found explicit paperwork there that said that 3 of the 9/11 hijackers trained there. Now that you know this if you say it again you will be lying because you know it is not true.

[Dave M]

So how many innocent non combatant US citizens have to be killed before it becomes a threat that we need to act on? What is the number for you to take action? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? What is your threshold?

Of course action needs to be taken after an attack, especially one of the magnitude of 9/11. That's why I have said repeatedly that the Afghanistan war was justified. Iraq did not kill American citizens. It was a pre-emptive war.

You just accused American soldiers of killing men, women, and children in Iraq. Is that what you really wanted to say?

American soldiers are targeting any Islamic radical who is trying to kill anyone whether it is a US soldier or and Iraqi civilian. Islamic radicals are targeting ANYONE whether it is a man, woman, child, US soldier, European reporter, you, me, whatever. They don't care who gets killed. If it happens to be them or one of their friends it's OK to them because they are now a martyr. You can't see the difference in these two?

Our soldiers/bombs are killing men, women and children. I'm not saying they are doing so purposely or are targeting them, but civilians die in wars. Collateral damage happens. And our own soldiers count as men and women. I believe their deaths are the result of an unneeded war. Are they different from Islamic radicals? Of course? But did they die to further a political agenda? I think so. Even if it was to stop Iraq from having WMDs, that is a political agenda, albeit a noble one.

[Dave M]

Said on Polish TV? I don't recall ever hearing him on Polish TV. Show me where he said that because I have never heard him say we found the weapons.

Maybe you'll find it in this video: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64513/detail/

I'm not saying I support the premise of the video (It is obviously a "liberal" video), but it contains old news footage.

[RangerBob]

My 2 cents

I"ve been here 4 years now, spent many days and night in both Iraq and Afganistan.

The Western world would like to remake this place in its image.

That will not happen for many reasons. How would you like it if a foreign power started dictating terms to us?

It is up to the locals to get their S--t together.

We will see if they are up to the task.

Bob

[Dave M]

My 2 cents

I"ve been here 4 years now, spent many days and night in both Iraq and Afganistan.

The Western world would like to remake this place in its image.

That will not happen for many reasons. How would you like it if a foreign power started dictating terms to us?

It is up to the locals to get their S--t together.

We will see if they are up to the task.

Bob

Well said, Bob. I've been saying it since day one. We can't dictate a style of governement to a people after invading their country and destroying much of it and expect them to embrace it. How many of us would take up arms to defend the US if we were invaded, our government toppled, and a new one set up to the occupying country's liking? I would hope all of us would. Repressive regime or not, the people need to decide for themselves. If rule under Saddam was so bad, they could have risen up and overthrown him.

And thank you, RangerBob, for being there and putting your life on the line for our country. No matter what I think of a particular wa I will always have the utmost respect and awe for those who have the courage, bravery, and dedication to actually be on the ground fighting it.

Stay safe!

[Dave M]

Some good news from the front:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ure/index.html

[Jeff_in_Atl]

My 2 cents

I"ve been here 4 years now, spent many days and night in both Iraq and Afganistan.

The Western world would like to remake this place in its image.

That will not happen for many reasons. How would you like it if a foreign power started dictating terms to us?

It is up to the locals to get their S--t together.

We will see if they are up to the task.

Bob

You are right. So how do you get a bunch of people who are hell bent on killing other people in the name of their religion to stop? It obvious what they have been doing for the last 50 years isn't working. It looks to me like they need to change but like a drug addict it has to be their decision. It's funny how some middle eastern countries like Qatar have made the change.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Maybe you'll find it in this video: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64513/detail/

I'm not saying I support the premise of the video (It is obviously a "liberal" video), but it contains old news footage.

You can take videos and cut it past it to make anyone look foolish.

[DJ Taso]

Ron Paul 2008

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I believe their deaths are the result of an unneeded war.

OK I know you think Afghanistan was needed and Iraq is unneeded and unjust. Afghanistan was to go in and get Al Qaeda being harbored by the Taliban. Iraq was also to get Al Qaeda that were being harbored by Saddam. (We know Al Qaeda was in Iraq because we found there training camp there with the 707.) How is that different? Bush said we will go after the countries who aid an harbor terrorist.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Ron Paul 2008

Ron Paul is an isolationist. We saw how well that worked in the 1930s.