This morning the media was stressing that Saddam was not at the heart of all of these terrorist attacks, so that capturing him doesn't mean that the war is over by a long shot.

They're right.

I'm torn about this. I live in NYC- I never NEVER want to see another Sept. 11th. I want to feel safe again. Heightened military action seems to be necessary to achieving that goal.

The problem is that I don't know that the current military action is the way to do that. The men who pulled off Sept. 11th didn't have anything to do with Saddam Hussein, and more ties to our good friends in Saudi Arabia than Iraq.

The war is a great way to get access to that country's oil supplies, but a way to root out Al Queda? Capturing Saddam doesn't mean squat to Al Queda except for another martyr to fuel their cause.

I would LIKE to be able to trust our country and say that our military leaders are doing their best to protect us, but I don't really believe that. I dont think that any Americans are that naive about the things that our government does anymore. I think our leaders (republican AND democrat) are politicians and they are doing the best they can for their own bank accounts. The safety and wellbeing of the people is a distant second. Very distant.

He's probably been captured, this administration probably was like yea right now let's suddenly "find him" . I predict we will probably fine Bin Laden around August or September about 2-3 months before the 2004 elections.

For that matter, where is Osama Bin Laden..... how is it that we've been looking for him longer than Saddam and all of a sudden we get intelligence information that lead us straight to Saddam? We've been looking for Bin Laden for how many years, and he's no where to be found? C'mon. Shouldn't our focus be finding the person who claimed responsibility for 9/11?

OMG!!! I was LMAO at that one! If that happens, there's going to be some eyebrows raised, for real...

I agree with what ohters have previously said:

1.) WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS!?!?! That was the first sentence that came to my mind, when I woke up this morning and my mom told me that he'd been captured. I was like "Okay, but where are the WMD?" :confused: Cuz we all know there weren't any weapons to begin with. :rolleyes: They probably did know where he was all along, and just let him ride it out until they wanted to "capture" him...

2.) Our country has really demonized him. I mean, I know that he wasn't a nice person, to say the absolute very least, but who says b/c of that, we have the gall to go up in some else's country and remove them, esp. when we weren't honest about the reason in the first place...Our culture here is really screwed up, and if I were an Iraqi I wouldn't rust Bush or our govt. as far as I can throw him...

The question now though (which is what they were talking about on CNN), is where and how will he be tried? The Iraqi's deserve to try him in their own land. But, since we captured him, AND it's election time around the corner, I'm sceptical about that happening (even though Bush supposed has to following Int'l Law)...On the news, they were like "He should get the death penalty". I wonder how this will play out...

Don't you know? Osama is soooo 2001. :rolleyes:

...in dude's beard, maybe?

I'm worried that this may not be Sadaam, but one of those body doubles that he uses that I've heard about. I mean, who knows with the DNA stuff...this just seems too good to be true!

All that hair is a SERIOUS WEAPON of MASS DESTRUCTION!!!


Can you imagine Mrs. Saddam's reaction to him asking for a kiss?!!?! "Iraqian are you crazy?!?!!?"

...but with the pressure of the Marines chasing him, I bet he put in on her like it was the very last time because.... well, now I guess it is. :o

but still, bin Laden is like 6'6" with a f---ked up beard and we can't find him. WTH?

As Jay Anthony Brown (Tom Joyner) says, "I bet if these sumb*tches had student loans we'd know where they were. If you got a student loan they know how to find yo azz."

He ain't neva lied. :o Mofos find you all willy nilly.:mad:

Re: Boosh
 

I KNOW! I am so perturbed about that!

I 'm so tired of the way this man's face is plastered all over the media being exploited for the Tyranical Bush regime. It's truly sad I and many others don't agree w/the way Bush stole the election of 2000 and I really disagree w/his policies so would it be o-kay if say China came over here and remove the Bush regime from power........like we did Saddam damn it's just not fair western aggression is alive and well. Reminds me of the western crusades.

Ditto.

Can our soldiers come back home now??? :( :mad: :(

I will say that absolutely love chatting with people who's viewpoints are so different from my own....:)

I can't believe the cynical thinking though...folx must really think President Bush is EVIL. GEEZ I give the man more credit than that.... waiting to "find" Saddam for a political move?? Do you really think something like that would never get out?? My skin crawls when I hear people say that Our President is as evil as Saddam.

I guess some people think I'm either naive or crazy because I really applaud the job MY President is doing and has done....and at the same time I think some people just love conspiracy theories, hate rich white men in power, and republicans

its a good thing we live in a country where we can all express such views

LoveSpell I gotta give it too you you bring a sense of debate to this forum cause I am like whoaaa:eek:

Lovespell
Not only is he evil but dangerous as well...........................

Glad Bush is my Prez..
 

Oh... you must know him personally to make a statement with such confidence.

If you don't know him personally...I think your statement is more of an opinion than fact....that could result from partisan politics. It is a FACT that Saddam gassed his own people and tortured them. It is a FACT that he instructed the rape and brutalization of women in his country. That amounts to evil to me.... PLEASE show me documented proof where MY President has done something similar..so that I too can see his evil ways.

Instead of continuing the mission of getting Osama who devised a plan for his followers to come into the US, take OUR PLANES, use those planes as bombs against OUR BUILDINGS and successfully kill thousands of OUR PEOPLE, he decides to use the lives of our loved ones to settle a personal vendetta with Saddam because he hasn't done anything to US (proven from your facts above). If that's not EVIL, I don't know what is? While the US being big brother is a whole different topic, the fact is we could have addressed Saddam AFTER we took care of our own enemies.

So we capture Saddam and we give relief to Iraq. What relief has the US gotten from capturing Saddam? Note that the downfall of the economy was due to 9/11 and not the war in Iraq. What justice have we gotten for the pain and suffering from 9/11? Tax cuts??? Sorry, but more money in my portfolio doesn't erase the memories of all those people who died when those buildings collapsed. I would need for my President to capture the terrorist(s) who afflicted my country directly and maybe then he could get my respect. As conservative as I am, I'll leave the loving of the old, republican, rich white man with power to you sista. *that just sounds so nasty*

Setting aside that he's a Bush and political affiliations, the fact is he failed as our President. In his own words from (http://www.indystar.com/library/fact...pt11/bush.html)

"The search is under way for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice."

"Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?... Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."
At the time who would have ever thought we'd be right back in Iraq?

"I have called our military into action, to hunt down the members of the al Qaeda organization who murdered innocent Americans...I am so proud of our military. Our military is pursuing its mission... We are deliberately and systematically hunting down these murderers, and we will bring them to justice."

He hasn't followed through on any of these statements. Bush is now in high spirits and in high regards with the American people as he was when he got elected. I just pray to God that history doesn't repeat itself and Osama doesn't do anything to bring the focus back to his agenda with the US while we are celebrating our "great victory".

If Bush finds Bin Laden, cures cancer, AIDS and the flu....he'll still be EVIL to some people!

Lovespell first you must dispell all the myths and western brainwashing.

(1) Saddam killed his own people: The Kurds were a different ethnic group from Saddam who were encouraged and influenced by Bush1 to overthrow the Iraqi goverment after the first gulf war,what Saddam did was put down a revolt that was an agent against Iraq.Do you really believe we would have done any different. Since the Kurds were of a different race then Saddam image what would happen if say a large numbers of blacks recieved weapons from China and were encoraged to overthrow the America goverment?

(2) In America do we really have room to talk about somebody raping women......I mean really.

(3) Bush is dangerous b/c he lied to the American people about WMD being in Iraq thus causing the deaths of hundreds of young American troops and thousands of Iraqi people because of one mans pride and hate. Iraq couldn't defeat Iran in eight years w/the help of the America(did you know that) so how could they be a threat to the word community just lies,lies.


gotta go the boss just walked by I,ll finish this @home

First of all...just because we do not agree..does not mean I have brainwashed...

Second, I was addressing the point of comparing Saddam and Bush as being equally evil. I could post TONS of factual articles about how Saddam and his 2 sons terrorized the Iraqi people...but there's no point....when it comes to Dubya...it doesn't matter....he will still be hated. No matter what comes out linking Bin Laden/Hussein...some will still say this war was unjust! I mean they could be caught on tape collaborating and it still wouldn't matter!! I was not in the briefing room with the President and Colin Powell et al when the evidence was presented or discussed...and I suspect neither were you...so how can u say he lied about the WMD's? If/When they're found...what will u say??

Do you really believe there is absolutely NO connection between Al Queda and Hussein? have u ever heard the saying The enemy of my enemy is my friend??

I dont agree with everything Bush has done....or ANY President for that matter...but the "hate" for GWB (which probably stems from the election) sometimes clouds peoples perspectives of anything this administration does. The fact that you're comparing your Assumption that Bush lied with the terror that Saddam has caused....which thus means they're both equally evil.... leaves me in awe..:eek:

Lastly, I don't understand what u meant by saying women in the US get raped too. And as far as the men and women that are getting killed....uh....when you join the military...that is a risk you take. You can't receive all the benefits and set asides the government has to offer you....and then complain when you're called up for the highest duty. If you don't ever want to be sent to war....you may not want to join the military...its kinda in the job description.

I gotta agree to disagree on this one

Hey LoveSpell....I love your new tagline. I'm on board with that.

I'm not sure how many of u realize this...but even if/when we find the WMD's....even if/when we find Bin Laden....there will still be a war on terror! It is multifaceted! Killing ONE person or finding SOME WMD's will not be the end all be all. No one wants to hear or accept this....but this will be an ongoing war FOREVER. We strike them...they strike us....Just the way its gonna be. You cannot kill an ideology. There are people that will KEEP coming at the US because they HATE what we believe and what we stand for...they believe they are fulfilling their God's commands when they kill us...they die for what they believe in...this IS a holy war.

Thats why when people just want to "argue" and "debate" what/who we have found and how evil Bush is...I think its getting caught up in the small part of a larger situation. This war will be here for our children to fight...all we can do is try to protect ourselves as best we can...

And if that means ridding the world of people who like to make lil video tapes saying "death to americans" and "kill the infidel" ..we gotta do what we gotta do


Would have been nice if Clinton had gotten BIn Laden when he had the chance....but i guess him and MOnica were busy.

Thanks bruh;)

The same way he'll be loved no matter what he does wrong. You can't debate people's feelings. The President is going to be open to good and bad criticism. :confused:

Umm, I think we are all educated to know that this isn't our first nor our last war. LOL However, that doesn't mean we can get laxed or use our personal preferences when bringing terrorists to justice. Was Saddam really a priority for the American people?

This really shouldn't be a republican-democrat debate considering there are some republicans who are disappointed in Bush. You say what Clinton should have done, someone will say what Bush should have done 10 years ago and we can keep this up until we get to George Washington. It's all shoulda, woulda, coulda when the fact is Bush, our current President, hasn't lived up to his commitment.

Lovespell anything you post about the evils of Saddam would be nothing but western propagander to demonize the man this whole war was a sham. Saddam was focus on and attacked b/c he was an easy target he was the president of Iraq everyone knew where he was at unlike Osama,Bush knew that the majority of the American population would be so soft headed that they would buy into the ties between Saddam and Osama b/c they're both Arab and consider our foes....which is good enuff for most Americans. Basically we are a bunch of bullies who pick on the small and the weak with our so called great military might Bush called out three nations in 2001 he called them the axis of evil they were Iraq,Iran and North Korea this was before sept 11th it was his plan all along to attack these nations Iraq has been 1st now the Bush admin is riding Iran about having the technology to develop nuclear weapons(sounds familiar) but North Korea seeing the writing on the wall has annouced that they have nukes and the Bush admin has pulled a straight bitch move and suddenly wants to open talks w/North Korea I wonder if NK didn;t have these nukes would the lines of communication be this open. I can't believe anyone would buy this whole sale BS the Bush admin is selling.For sept 11th you want Osama not Saddam.... also can anybody tell me how many Iraqis were aboard any of the hi-jacked planes on sept 11th just like Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy materials from Niger to produce nukes he lied about the connection between Saddam and Sept 11th.

Army May Keep Forces in Iraq Through '06
1 hour, 15 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!


By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The Army's top general said Wednesday he is making plans based on the possibility that the Army will be required to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq (news - web sites) through 2006.


Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that "for planning purposes" he has ordered his staff to consider how the Army would replace the force that is now rotating into Iraq with another force of similar size in 2005 — and again in 2006.


Stretched by commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan (news - web sites), South Korea (news - web sites) and the Balkans, the Army has used emergency authority to go beyond the limit set by Congress on the number of soldiers who can be in uniform, Schoomaker said.


He said the Army now is about 11,000 soldiers above the 482,400 limit and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has authorized the service to temporarily exceed the limit by as much as 30,000.


The decision about when to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq will be made by President Bush (news - web sites) and his national security aides, in consultation with American commanders in Iraq. As a service chief, Schoomaker's role is to ensure that soldiers are trained and equipped for any mission the president requires.


Of the 105,000 troops going to Iraq this winter and spring to replace the 130,000 who have been there since the start of the war, about 80,000 are Army soldiers. The replacement force, which includes 25,000 Marines, is scheduled to spend a full year in Iraq.


Army officials have said that planning for the 2005 rotation of forces into Iraq will begin in February.


Schoomaker said he was opposed to Congress passing legislation to permanently expand the size of the Army, mainly because it would be too costly.


"I'm adamant that that is not the way to go," the Army chief said.


Even while the Iraq war continues, the Pentagon (news - web sites) is planning a new offensive in the two-year-old Afghanistan campaign to try to stop remnants of the Taliban regime and the al-Qaida terrorist network, officials said Wednesday.


Orders have been issued to prepare equipment and supplies, though the operation will not necessarily require additional troops in the region, where about 11,000 Americans are still deployed, a defense official said on condition of anonymity.


Schoomaker said the Army is enjoying success in recruiting new soldiers.


"There are more people lining up to come in than we've ever had, and the quality of those people is higher than it's ever been, and there's no indication right now that that's not going to continue," he said.


Members of the House panel expressed surprise that Rumsfeld had agreed that the Army needed as many as 30,000 more soldiers, since he has publicly opposed a legislative move to expand the service.


Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., said it sounded as if Rumsfeld was accomplishing through the use of his own executive powers the troop increase that he had resisted on Capitol Hill.


Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned that the requirement for large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may break the Army.


"This does not mean we should pull back from our commitments," Skelton said. "We can't unring the bell. We're there. We've got to win. We've got to stabilize that country," he said of Iraq. "We cannot afford that to evolve into a civil war."

Pentagon: 3 Months in Iraq Cost $14B
1 hour, 5 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!


By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The ongoing war in Iraq (news - web sites) cost about $4 billion in September, spiked to $7 billion in October and hit just under $3 billion in November, the Pentagon (news - web sites) said Wednesday in its latest report on how much the military operation costs.


AFP Photo



That amounted to roughly $14 billion spent on U.S. military operations in Iraq over the three-month period late last year, the latest figures available, said Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's chief financial official.


He said analysts were trying to determine why the costs spiked in October.


Officials previously had said the occupation of Iraq is costing $1 billion a week.


Zakheim also sought to allay concerns, expressed by top military chiefs to a congressional committee Tuesday, that the Pentagon would run out of money to finance the efforts.


The Iraq war and occupation, along with the ongoing operations in Afghanistan (news - web sites), are being paid for through supplemental spending bills that are approved by Congress outside of the regular budget process.


Already, Congress has approved $166 billion for those operations. The Pentagon has said it does not expect the Bush administration to seek another spending bill until January 2005, but the chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps suggested Tuesday that money will run out by the end of September.


Zakheim said Wednesday that the military can fill the gap by borrowing money from other operations and maintenance accounts. This causes some repairs and maintenance work to be delayed, but Zakheim said this would not lead to permanent problems if a supplemental spending bill were approved by the following spring.


Why wait? Zakheim said the Pentagon wanted to see how events in Iraq unfold this year before deciding how much money it will need.


He denied the suggestion that the Bush administration was waiting until after the November elections to prevent the cost from becoming a political issue.