Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Palestinian Jew said:I am very disappointed. I defend Kerry on most of his statements, but this was purely pandering to the swing voters who were in favor of the war. I cannot understand how anybody, knowing what we know now would still want to go into Iraq when we know that there are much bigger fish out there like Iran.
Show me where, within the last year, he has flip-flopped.
Kathianne said:PJ, you seem a rational sort of person, for a liberal. Do you really think we would know, what we now know about Iran, without Iraq? Do you recognize how much more vunerable Iran is now? Please check out the Iraqi blogger post, in Najaf I just posted-does is resonate with you, at all?
Palestinian Jew said:Thank you. Not all of us lefties foam from the mouth, though we do bite.
I couldn't find the post, but if it is written by an Iraqi in Najaf I would love to read it, especially at this point in time.
I was just suggesting Iran, but there are others that we wouldn't necessarily have to invade, but would have to spend a lot of money on, like Sudan or North Korea. But I would not have invaded Iraq. It was effectively contained just as Powell and Condi stated in the summer of 2001.
Palestinian Jew said:Thank you. Not all of us lefties foam from the mouth, though we do bite.
I couldn't find the post, but if it is written by an Iraqi in Najaf I would love to read it, especially at this point in time.
I was just suggesting Iran, but there are others that we wouldn't necessarily have to invade, but would have to spend a lot of money on, like Sudan or North Korea. But I would not have invaded Iraq. It was effectively contained just as Powell and Condi stated in the summer of 2001.
Palestinian Jew said:Thank you. Not all of us lefties foam from the mouth, though we do bite.
I couldn't find the post, but if it is written by an Iraqi in Najaf I would love to read it, especially at this point in time.
I was just suggesting Iran, but there are others that we wouldn't necessarily have to invade, but would have to spend a lot of money on, like Sudan or North Korea. But I would not have invaded Iraq. It was effectively contained just as Powell and Condi stated in the summer of 2001.
freeandfun1 said:PJ: Have you ever considered that the US KNEW that we would be facing problems with Iran and North Korea and therefore, needed to get the situation with Iraq settled so that we would not have VALUABLE resources dedicated to "containing" (on the US $ and Brit Pnd mind you) Saddam?
The 911 Commission states that the problem was that, before 911, we, as a nation, did not view the "Wars" declared against us as wars. Well, perhaps after 911 Bush and company decided that they were going to LOOK AHEAD AS IS THERE JOB and this is all part of a MASTER PLAN to rid the world of Islamic, terrorist, thugs? Ever think about that?
Kathianne said:Biting not allowed, under most circumstances. Sudan is a whole different kettle of fish, go in, root out the bad and give aid. Leave and the whole thing starts up again, but will take awhile to get so low. NK, that's waaayyy different. Iran would be harder by far than Iraq, which is why I think they would like to give time for fall from within, but time is not working it's way there. NK, Saddam X 10, minimum-very dangerous, to both Seoul and our troops. Reason why held for 'last.' That one has nothing to do with Islam, everything to do with terror.
Here's that link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141558&postcount=3
dilloduck said:However Saddam may have been the weak link that put the US in the catbird seat in the Arab world. serendipity (sp) anyone?
Palestinian Jew said:Master Plan? LOL
If they could look ahead you'd think they'd have been able to figure out that there would be resistance in Iraq, there wouldn't be WMDs and Chalabi is a liar.
NK at the time was a growing threat, they didn't go nuclear until late 2002, so the war in iraq allowed them to get a nuke. I see that as being worse off than if we had taken out their facilities and left Saddam in power.
Of course Iran was already a huge threat as they enabled the hijackers and backed terrorism, now we know they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon, if they haven't already. So again, I'd leave Saddam in power if it meant that Iran could no longer house Hezbollah and achieve nuclear weapons. Adding to that, they have a strong movement within their country to be democratic so an invasion would actually have support within the country, thus making it much easier.
Kathianne said:PJ, you seem a rational sort of person, for a liberal. Do you really think we would know, what we now know about Iran, without Iraq? Do you recognize how much more vunerable Iran is now? Please check out the Iraqi blogger post, in Najaf I just posted-does is resonate with you, at all?
I agree. Some that claim to be 'brighter than the rest' refuse or are unable to look at the larger scheme of things. Sometimes it's downright depressing.Bonnie said:Kathianne I think many people forget how important it is to have friendly governments in that region. We now have two more in addition to maybe Jordan, Israel, and may add Iran to the mix. This war on terror is a slow and multifaceted process. I'm amazed at how quickly people's resolve can break when the answer is not as fast as they unrealisitcally think it should be.
freeandfun1 said:You totally missed my point. Nobody EVER said Iraq was going to be quick, or easy. Actually, you didn't miss my point, you just ignored it. Typical.
Iraq was the easiest of the three to tackle, so they were tackled first. Sure, some say go after the most difficult targets first, but we needed a base of ops in the ME (cause we KNEW the Saudis are NOT reliable, but we need their oil), and Iraq serves that purpose JUST FINE!
As for NK, thank your buddy Clinton for NK. Their advancement in their technology clearly shows that THEY NEVER stopped their program as Clinton had indicated. Carter f*cked that one up royaly.
The NK's are not stupid. Once we slam Iran, NK will be more willing to negotiate a peaceful solution. I am willing to bet that it will be part of some kind of unification scenario with the south and part of the agreement will be that they will get to keep their nuclear technolgy and weapons, but they will have to become a signatory to the Missile and Nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
NK wants nukes not just because of the USA, but also because they are still living in 1953 and they still fear Japan and China although China probably to a lesser extent.
Palestinian Jew said:Iraq is the easiest of the three, which is exactly why Bush decided to go there, because in his warped mind it was going to be an easy win that would make him look good, plus he could continue being the war president.
Both Clinton and Bush failed us big time on NK. It is far too late to be able to go back and I see no way of ever defeating them, certainly not militarily, the people have all been brainwashed to such an extent that they believe everything their leaders Kim Sung and Jong Ill have said.
Palestinian Jew said:Maybe, but it will take 10-20 years to find out. In the same amount of time we could end our dependency on oil, thereby ending the problem of the middle east altogether.
Palestinian Jew said:Iraq is the easiest of the three, which is exactly why Bush decided to go there, because in his warped mind it was going to be an easy win that would make him look good, plus he could continue being the war president.
Both Clinton and Bush failed us big time on NK. It is far too late to be able to go back and I see no way of ever defeating them, certainly not militarily, the people have all been brainwashed to such an extent that they believe everything their leaders Kim Sung and Jong Ill have said.