George W.

[Seahawks]

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade…

 

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

 

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

 

But we are in a very difficult position right now…

 

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

 

 

I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man

 

--- Hillary Clinton

[ashw_justin]

Assuming that Washington knew something that we didn't, they should have just been straightforward about it. Sure, it's easy to get support through lies and propaganda, but that just hurts our country. Unfortunately "we have to disarm Iraq" was not the strongest battle cry. In my opinion it's with extreme disrespect to the people of this country that the official battle cries went more like:

"why do they hate us"

"we have to win the 'war on terror'"

"you're either with us or against us"

None of which, when you think about it, actually mean anything or describe anything concrete. But all of which have led to shameful, hypocritical, anticooperative foreign policy.

[Dechristo]

In my opinion it's with extreme disrespect to the people of this country that the battle cries went more like:

"why do they hate us"

 

I think it was quite an eye-opener to many, if not most, of the people in this country to see on their televisions mobs of people in Islamic cities rejoicing at the news and images of the World Trade Towers collapsing.

[archenemy]

I think that came as a shock to folks as well.

[Seahawks]

In my opinion it's with extreme disrespect to the people of this country that the battle cries went more like:

"why do they hate us"

 

I think it was quite an eye-opener to many, if not most, of the people in this country to see on their televisions mobs of people in Islamic cities rejoicing at the news and images of the World Trade Towers collapsing.

 

Not a shock, they have wanted us all dead for decades. If you didn't know that you had your head buried in the sand.

[archenemy]

We aren't talking about DeC here, we are talking about Americans as a group.

[ashw_justin]

Oh yeah, they hate us alright. Of course there's a difference between celebrating, and conspiring to commit a terrorist act on U.S. soil. I think the only way this is ever going to work is if we figure out how to get the latter ones without having to declare war on entire countries and peoples.

[Seahawks]

Oh yeah, they hate us alright. Of course there's a difference between celebrating, and conspiring to commit a terrorist act on U.S. soil. I think the only way this is ever going to work is if we figure out how to get the latter ones without having to declare war on entire countries and peoples.

 

Let them police there own people. Just do what you did in the cold war. Mutual destuction if a bomb goes off here. take out lets say the top 50 muslim holy cities.

 

Bad idea but how else?

[Dechristo]

 

Let them police there own people. Just do what you did in the cold war. Mutual destuction if a bomb goes off here. take out lets say the top 50 muslim holy cities.

 

Bad idea but how else?

 

Figures you'd be in favor of "bad ideas" if only because it's the only idea you've got.

 

 

[Seahawks]

 

Let them police there own people. Just do what you did in the cold war. Mutual destuction if a bomb goes off here. take out lets say the top 50 muslim holy cities.

 

Bad idea but how else?

 

Figures you'd be in favor of "bad ideas" if only because it's the only idea you've got.

 

 

Didn't say I was in favor of it Mr. assumption.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Seahawks

[kevbone]

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade…

 

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

 

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

 

But we are in a very difficult position right now…

 

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

 

 

I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man

 

--- Hillary Clinton

 

STFU boob.

[Dechristo]

you fucking proposed it.

[Seahawks]

 

STFU boob.

 

Knew that be hard one for you to accept.

[archenemy]

Oh yeah, they hate us alright. Of course there's a difference between celebrating, and conspiring to commit a terrorist act on U.S. soil. I think the only way this is ever going to work is if we figure out how to get the latter ones without having to declare war on entire countries and peoples.

 

Let them police there own people. Just do what you did in the cold war. Mutual destuction if a bomb goes off here. take out lets say the top 50 muslim holy cities.

 

Bad idea but how else?

I am not an expert on Cold War history--frankly, I have just not been interested in Russia. But I from what I remember from economic history books (layman's books only) the Cold War was over not mainly due to the disarmament talks (there stuff was getting old and crusty anyway) but b/c of economic measures we took after the detente (or whatever fancy word they use for stopping that idiocy).

 

So I don't see this working for two reasons:

 

first, the fundamentalist groups in the Middle East don't want our capitalist lifestyle and our comsumerist culture. The regular people over there may, but they get beat down for speaking up.

 

second, they don't have a nuke; hence, it ain't mutual.

Edited May 23, 2007 by archenemy

[Dechristo]

third, it seems most of the real threats emanate from groups without geopolitical identity.

[mattp]

Plus, we already tried that one. T They killed 3000 of "ours," and we've killed 600,00 of 'theirs." It doesn't seem to be working, though I suppose it COULD be the case that all the terrorists are in their last gasps.

[archenemy]

What does that mean?

[Seahawks]

you fucking proposed it.

 

Kind of like you proposing putting jews in ash trays?

[Dechristo]

with the exception of the saber-rattling by Iran, most of the perceived threat is by "groups", not nations.

[Dechristo]

you fucking proposed it.

 

Kind of like you proposing putting jews in ash trays?

 

you have a bad memory.

 

unless you believe me to own the avatar of V7

[Seahawks]

third, it seems most of the real threats emanate from groups without geopolitical identity.

 

Give them a geopolitical identity and let them police themselves. To have a government throw up there arms and say we can't do anthing about them is bullshit.

[Seahawks]

you fucking proposed it.

 

Kind of like you proposing putting jews in ash trays?

 

you have a bad memory.

 

unless you believe me to own the avatar of V7

 

Sorry, my bad, your right. You two are so much alike.

[Dechristo]

sorry, I forgot to allow for your literary/reading comprehension skills.

 

My bad

[Seahawks]

sorry, I forgot to allow for your literary/reading comprehension skills.

 

My bad

 

I guess I should have allowed for the same on my point with you. didn't have your reading glasses on.

[ashw_justin]

To have a government throw up there arms and say we can't do anthing about them is bullshit.

That's what brought up the "harboring terrorists" dilemma, right. How do you get a country to go after internal criminals that are just as likely to bite the hand that feeds them? One could draw parallels to the Colombian drug trade and our activities there. Although the FARC doesn't seem to want death to the U.S. so much as a armed revolution to gain control of that country.