World Terror Leaders want you to vote Democratic!

[Senior Chief]

Senior,

Im not sure how your comment on "media's reports" of the war in Iraq have absolutly anything to do with your statements. The NIE entitled "Trends for Global Terrorism" http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Show that we have created an entire host of problems for the "war on terror", which was our excuse for going in to Afganistan. As for Iraq, we went in to stop WMDs (which there were none) and tp eliminate terrorist threats. I completely agree with mmarsh here.

So what you are saying is that we should stop all efforts to stop terrorism in the world and just protect our shores? How dumb are you? Do you think that the current location of our troops has nothing to do with the restricted activity of Al Queda and other terrorist groups that are sympathetic to their cause?

Iraq had training camps for Al Queda. After 9/11 the President said if you harbor or support terrorism we will be coming. Did you miss those two historic points?

The reports you refer to seem to be biased in their report. The world situation is not as bad as they say nor as bad as it could be if we had done the Clintonesque thing and sat on our hands.

There were no WMD's? There were traces of the gas used in the North as well as on Iran. Did you miss the fact that MIG's were found hidden in the desert? If you can hide a MIG in that manner how can you not consider that other types of weapons might not be hidden in the same manner? Consider that when the UN inspectors were in Iraq they were required, by Saddam, to give two weeks notice of when they were going to inspect any given facility. Has it ever occured to you that components could have been moved in that two week period?

Do you remember the famous uniforms of workers (new uniforms BTW) that said "Baby Milk Factory" on the backs to let the world know that we were inspecting wrong places?

See the facts and misinterpet them to fit your agenda is the common goal of the media and some reporting agencies.

 

[AlexKall]

As long as it's not Bush I'm happy. Or should I say someone that doesn't lie? I guess there will be no leaders in the world if the last ever becomes true to every country heh

 

[WNxRogue]

So what you are saying is that we should stop all efforts to stop terrorism in the world and just protect our shores? How dumb are you? Do you think that the current location of our troops has nothing to do with the restricted activity of Al Queda and other terrorist groups that are sympathetic to their cause?

Iraq had training camps for Al Queda. After 9/11 the President said if you harbor or support terrorism we will be coming. Did you miss those two historic points?

The reports you refer to seem to be biased in their report. The world situation is not as bad as they say nor as bad as it could be if we had done the Clintonesque thing and sat on our hands.

There were no WMD's? There were traces of the gas used in the North as well as on Iran. Did you miss the fact that MIG's were found hidden in the desert? If you can hide a MIG in that manner how can you not consider that other types of weapons might not be hidden in the same manner? Consider that when the UN inspectors were in Iraq they were required, by Saddam, to give two weeks notice of when they were going to inspect any given facility. Has it ever occured to you that components could have been moved in that two week period?

Do you remember the famous uniforms of workers (new uniforms BTW) that said "Baby Milk Factory" on the backs to let the world know that we were inspecting wrong places?

See the facts and misinterpet them to fit your agenda is the common goal of the media and some reporting agencies.

A. Yes, I believe that our troops are not a significant hamper on Al-Queda activities.
B. It is not the duty of the president to police the world and attack nations that he suspects of "harboring terrorists"
C. The reports I refer to is a de-classified report by the 16 diffrent intelligence branches giving their estimate based on their data about the situation on the GWOT. This is not another recurence of the "liberal bias" that many of you whine about, it is a GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT. Biased? I think not.
D. Speculation is a wonderful thing, but dont let your imagination get away from you. WMD is a broad term, and there are many diffrent definitions. Did Iraq have nukes? No. Did Iraq have biological weapons? No. Did they have large amounts of Chemical/Radiological Weapons? They have had some, but many? No. The "WMD" excuse is just that, and excuse. And yes, having the ability to hide a single MIG and having the ability to hide production sites, distribution methods and storage areas for WMDs are two entirely diffrent things.

 

[Senior Chief]

A. Yes, I believe that our troops are not a significant hamper on Al-Queda activities.

It's a good thing that your belief is not what is driving the current war on terror. We would be right back where we were when Clinton was president wondering what happened on 9/11/01, and the next attack, and the next and the next etc.

B. It is not the duty of the president to police the world and attack nations that he suspects of "harboring terrorists"

When we were attacked he made a statement, and at that time he had the backing of 90+% of the house and senate. When we went to Iraq with the intelligence we had at the time the President had 90+% backing of the house and senate.

Now for the bigger question: How can you state that Iraq was not harboring terrorists? Do you have a link to back up your claim that was dated BEFORE we used the intelligence available to make the decision? I didn't think so.

C. The reports I refer to is a de-classified report by the 16 diffrent intelligence branches giving their estimate based on their data about the situation on the GWOT. This is not another recurence of the "liberal bias" that many of you whine about, it is a GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT. Biased? I think not.

Got a link? I'd be happy to read your souces. I've searched several .gov sites looking and have found nothing that matches your interpetation of the situation.

 

[Donkey]

Let's see

9/11 Happened within the first year of Bush's first term...

The first attacks by Al Qaeda on the WTC where in the 90s during Clinton’s administration...

The USS Cole was attacked during Clintons Administration

US Embassies where attacked during Clintons Administration

Just to name the major ones….

Post 9/11 we have had no attacks on American Soils...

Meaning Bush has done a far better job than Clinton but since we can not talk like that Clinton was the hero and Bush is just screwing things up....For some reason people like to ignore the truth maybe because they can’t handle the truth...

 

[phoenix80]

Any ways, some people are very happy now and those are Defeatists and Jihadists all over the world, Mullahs of Iran, idiot leftists, Osama Bin Laden and America haters.

I congratulate them all and wish them a very pleasant victory over the rest of us since "the rest of us" didn't feel like defeating them.

 

[MontyB]

I congratulate them all and wish them a very pleasant victory over the rest of us since "the rest of us" didn't feel like defeating them.

The rest of us?

These were American elections, you seem to be flying a Canadian flag what exactly did "the rest of us" have to do with it?

It's a good thing that your belief is not what is driving the current war on terror. We would be right back where we were when Clinton was president wondering what happened on 9/11/01, and the next attack, and the next and the next etc.

Do you seriously believe that any other president democrat or republician would have handled 9/11 all that differently than the current one?
I personally dont believe they would have although I dont believe any of the others would have become involved in Iraq.

 

[Chief Bones]

Let's see - Clinton sat on his hands and did absolutely nothing to try to rein in Saddam - YEAH RIGHT!

Have you forgotten the thousands of airstrikes that were carried out in Iraq every time that an Iraqi radar system illuminated one of our aircraft that was flying in the no-fly zone?

According to some of the sources that I have seen, we flew more sorties into Iraq and struck more targets under Clinton than we did under Bush.

That is NOT what I would call sitting on your hands - do you?

The one thing Clinton didn't do that Bush did, was to invade a country that hadn't attacked us and DIDN'T have any plans to do so.

Before you dig up all of the disproved excuses that were used to justify the invasion - forget it ... they were ALL proven to be absolutely false justifications.

The REAL threat to the United States is still running free - what ever happened to the search for Osama Bin Ladin?

 

[Donkey]

Let's see - Clinton sat on his hands and did absolutely nothing to try to rein in Saddam - YEAH RIGHT!

Have you forgotten the thousands of airstrikes that were carried out in Iraq every time that an Iraqi radar system illuminated one of our aircraft that was flying in the no-fly zone?

According to some of the sources that I have seen, we flew more sorties into Iraq and struck more targets under Clinton than we did under Bush.

That is NOT what I would call sitting on your hands - do you?

The one thing Clinton didn't do that Bush did, was to invade a country that hadn't attacked us and DIDN'T have any plans to do so.

Before you dig up all of the disproved excuses that were used to justify the invasion - forget it ... they were ALL proven to be absolutely false justifications.

The REAL threat to the United States is still running free - what ever happened to the search for Osama Bin Ladin?

Who was talking about Saddam?

And Clinton didnt start that btw the 1st Bush did with implemting the No Fly Zone, Clinton simply upheld current policy.

 

[Senior Chief]

Let's see - Clinton sat on his hands and did absolutely nothing to try to rein in Saddam - YEAH RIGHT!

Have you forgotten the thousands of airstrikes that were carried out in Iraq every time that an Iraqi radar system illuminated one of our aircraft that was flying in the no-fly zone?

According to some of the sources that I have seen, we flew more sorties into Iraq and struck more targets under Clinton than we did under Bush.

That is NOT what I would call sitting on your hands - do you?

The one thing Clinton didn't do that Bush did, was to invade a country that hadn't attacked us and DIDN'T have any plans to do so.

Before you dig up all of the disproved excuses that were used to justify the invasion - forget it ... they were ALL proven to be absolutely false justifications.

The REAL threat to the United States is still running free - what ever happened to the search for Osama Bin Ladin?

The U.S., at the time of the No-Fly Zone infractions were under U.N. control. The fact that the planes were lit up were an act of war, not to mention the times the Iraqi's fired the SAM's at our planes and the planes of the coalition.

As for OBL, it is very apparent that you do not know what is going on to find him, Hell you don't even suspect anything.

Do you seriously believe that any other president democrat or republician would have handled 9/11 all that differently than the current one?
I personally dont believe they would have although I dont believe any of the others would have become involved in Iraq.

That final statement is the most assinine statement I have ever read on any bulletin board at any time. There is no way that you would have a clue as to what someone would have done after 9/11 other than President Bush.... why you might ask? Because President Bush was in the White House when the attacks occured (figuratively speaking).

We all do know what former President Clinton did when the U.S. was attacked. Three out of four times he did nothing. The one time he responded it was too little and too late and was a one time event.

Don't predict what others would have done, there is no precidence for that unless you want to use President Clinton as the measuring stick and then we all know where that would end up.

 

[MontyB]

Man you really have issues, it was a simple question designed not to insult anyone and your response is evasive and combative.

Seriously and with feeling go find a life.

 

[Senior Chief]

Man you really have issues, it was a simple question designed not to insult anyone and your response is evasive and combative.

Seriously and with feeling go find a life.

I throw up the :BS: flag!! Your remarks were not intended to be anything but demeaning to the U.S. President and the Administration.

You failed to look at history and view what the last two term President did when attacked. There is a pattern to the democratic response.

$1 will get you $10 that if a democrat takes office after President Bush the military in the U.S. will go back to the days of Jimmy Carter and the latter years of Bill Clinton. Not having enough money to operate let alone not having the equipment to respond to a crisis on one front let alone two.

Combative? When you throw stones and don't expect a response that makes you dumb as a democrat sitting in the White House.

 

[MontyB]

"Do you seriously believe that any other president democrat or republician would have handled 9/11 all that differently than the current one?
I personally dont believe they would have although I dont believe any of the others would have become involved in Iraq."

Which bit of that statement was "anything but demeaning to the U.S. President and the Administration."?

Now for a change actually read the comment answer the question asked with specifics not the usual half baked insults.

 

[Donkey]

Anyway you look at it when looking at historical facts the current administration has done a better job handling "homeland security" then the previous administration. Since one could very well argue that 9/11 happend because of Clinton's policies :O

I mean they did fall the first time they attacked the WTC and the second time wasnt far enough into Bushes administration for him to have yet made and significant world policies or for those policies to take effect and cause an affect.

 

[MontyB]

Anyway you look at it when looking at historical facts the current administration has done a better job handling "homeland security" then the previous administration. Since one could very well argue that 9/11 happend because of Clinton's policies :O

I mean they did fall the first time they attacked the WTC and the second time wasnt far enough into Bushes administration for him to have yet made and significant world policies or for those policies to take effect and cause an affect.

I wouldnt disagree but then which other administration has had to deal with the problem on the same level, its very hard to tell how other administrations would have reacted to a problem they never faced. As I said early though I am not sure (personal opinion only) any other administration (democratic or republican) would have handled 9/11 any different to the current one they were just lucky enough to never have to deal with it.

 

[Senior Chief]

"Do you seriously believe that any other president democrat or republician would have handled 9/11 all that differently than the current one?
I personally dont believe they would have although I dont believe any of the others would have become involved in Iraq."

Which bit of that statement was "anything but demeaning to the U.S. President and the Administration."?

Now for a change actually read the comment answer the question asked with specifics not the usual half baked insults.

Your context was apparent from previous posts. You can go back and disprove it, but the only way you can change your spots is with bleach and that might sting.

Don't try to play innocent about your disrespect for the U.S. President. It has always been forefront in your comments.

 

[MontyB]

Your context was apparent from previous posts. You can go back and disprove it, but the only way you can change your spots is with bleach and that might sting.

Don't try to play innocent about your disrespect for the U.S. President. It has always been forefront in your comments.

Ok so you are not going to answer the question then you are just going to create a context to justify a rant?

For the record over all no I dont like him but thats not to say he hasnt done some good things nor do I necessarily believe Gore or Kerry would have been any better over all and I still believe McCain would have been a better option to all of them.
But heres the real kicker this is just my personal opinion it carries no more validity than your opinion or anyone elses opinion it is based purely and simply on my perception of the information at hand and until you can understand that we will always be at odds.

 

[Senior Chief]

Ok so you are not going to answer the question then you are just going to create a context to justify a rant?

For the record over all no I dont like him but thats not to say he hasnt done some good things nor do I necessarily believe Gore or Kerry would have been any better over all and I still believe McCain would have been a better option to all of them.
But heres the real kicker this is just my personal opinion it carries no more validity than your opinion or anyone elses opinion it is based purely and simply on my perception of the information at hand and until you can understand that we will always be at odds.

You seem to be full of... well whatever you are full of.. You bash our President and then make a comment as you did and not expect to get it in return?

How many times do I need to answer your stupid question? The democratic response tends to follow that response that Clinton took, one of no response. If this would have happened near the beginning of Clintons terms in office he would have done nothing! OOPS, I forgot, we were attacked four times or more during his administration and he did nothing. Have you forgotten that part of history to identify what a democrat or another president would have done in office?

The republican party might not be the most loved party in the world, but at least when attacked there was a response and a realization that the terrorist group responsible is not a singluar person, nor country. They have cells spread all over the world.

I pray that your country does not get attacked after the democrats get their way and pull the military back to our shores. Once that is done and we are downsized, again, there will be no one to stand in the gap for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Reorganize your Army and stand by Homrer.

 

[MontyB]

Yeah I am sure the world is coming to an end some democrats got elected and everyone knows only republicans can defend the world.

So until you have something relevant to add I will simply stop responding to your comments please do the same to mine and we should hopefully not inflict ourselves on the other members of this forum, by all means throw in your usual "last word" comments so that you can feel you won and lets move on.

Incidently whatever that last insult is I am sure the feeling is mutual.
PS stop PMing me with insults as well it really gets a bit childish dont you think.

 

[Senior Chief]

Yeah I am sure the world is coming to an end some democrats got elected and everyone knows only republicans can defend the world.

So until you have something relevant to add I will simply stop responding to your comments please do the same to mine and we should hopefully not inflict ourselves on the other members of this forum, by all means throw in your usual "last word" comments so that you can feel you won and lets move on.

I answered your question (several times in this thread) and that is the best you can come up with?

Asking me to come up with some thing relevant seems to be something you should be asking of yourself. Your ignorance of the history of the U.S. is glaring and your attitude is that of a spoiled little child.

Now stomp yourself back to your room for the evening!

What a twit!