Bush-putting it in perspective

[Rudey]

Hillary and Bill Clinton wanted the war in Iraq even while Bush was in power. Last I checked John Kerry voted for the war but didn't want to fund it afterwards. What does that mean?

-Rudey
--And it's not Bush's war because Bush isn't the only person running the entire country.

[mrblonde]

So if al Qaeda is 'stronger than ever', why is it that every time the terror alert is raised, its 'just the Republicans trying to scare the general public'?

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by swissmiss04
Hearing things like this makes me wish we could adopt an Isolationist policy similar to that of the late19th century (pre-Spanish-American war)

We don't have that luxery without collapsing our economy, and allowing terrorists to develop resources with which to attack us. As long as we have the biggest economy, there will always be people who hate us just because they are jealous.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by justamom
I think in the initial post it was clear that it was an E-MAIL forwarded to me. I guess I wrongly figured the intro to the post would keep it on the lighter side.

Me-"This may have been posted-don't know, but if there can be a zillion anti Bush threads, this should be OK. It's an e-mail so if you want to argue with it, I'll forward responses to the guy that sent it to me! " No rolling eyes or red faced smilies. No serious intro...

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if you DID refer to Bush or Laura any way you desired.

On the "political discourse" point-
I think I recall a thread about how Laura MURDERED someone in a car accident??? Now that's real relevant.

I totally agree with you on your point of coming from BOTH sides of the Isle. Indeed it is.

I don't like this war either.

With all due respect Just A Mom, the people on this board aeem very passionate about their politics, on both sides and if you didn't want a heated political debate to start you shouldn't have posted this.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
As AGDee pointed out -- the first statistic about Detroit can actually work against the writer's point. Why should we be spending all this money in Iraq when our own cities apparently have bigger problems to be cleaned up? Plus, what the author means by "combat-related killings" isn't exactly clear. There could be a lot of deaths tied to the US's precense in Iraq that might not fall under the category of "combat-related killings."

Completely specious argument. The Middle East has to be remade, and going into Iraq was a geopolitical decision. That region was not going to change while Sadam was in power, and after 9-11, Iraq became the #1 nation in the world that funded radical Palestenian organizations. Sadam was destabilizing the region, and he had to go. If the region doesn't change, we may see an attack on American soil that would dwarf the number of homocides in Detroit that occur in a decade, let alone a month. These myopic analogies are par for the course with most of the criticism of the current American strategy.

People can blame Clinton for not catching Osama but the truth of that matter is that during Clinton's presidency we had much bigger stuff to deal with than Osama. Bin Laden was involved with the death of about 35 Americans during Clinton's time in office. Bin Laden was connected to the deaths of thousands during Bush's presidency . . . and he hasn't caught Osama yet either. Do I blame Bush for that? No . . . but you also can't blame Clinton for it. Hindsight is 20/20, but before 9/11, we had no clue that bin Laden was going to be as big as a threat as he was. There was more important stuff going on.

What was more important than going after the only entity in the world that actually attacked the US during the Clinton presidency? If getting Osama was so lacking in importance, than why do Bush critics point to the fact that Clinton warned Bush that Osama was America's biggest threat before he took office. You can't have it both ways. Clinton did recognize that Osama was a huge threat, and the plain simple truth is that his inaction was the catylyst that caused 9-11.[/B][/QUOTE]

Bush has hardly "crippled" the al-Quaeda . . . the most recent reports say that they are stronger than ever and are planning more attacks on the U.S., possibly as early as this summer.

Actually when it comes to operating on American soil, it looks like Bush has been very effective. Al Qaeda continues to operate, but its safe to say that they would rather kill Americans on American soil, than Muslims on Middle Eastern soil. Bush has crippled their effectiveness on our soil, and that's an effective defense of the American people in my book. Will Al Qaeda attack here before the elections? It could happen, but they better do it more than two months before the election. When this nation, or the president, is attacked, the "rally 'round the president" effect kicks in, and the president's popularity jumps up.[/B][/QUOTE]

Again, comparing the "liberation" of Iraq to other situations is hardly an accurate measure. When you're looking at something like the Waco situation -- it took so long because they didn't want to injure anymore of the kids! If the American army had tried to free Iraq without harming any children, you can bet it would have taken a little bit longer.

Awww, how nice of Clinton to worry about the kids in Waco. He also took his sweet time to helping the kids who were being raped or murdered in Bosnia. Oh yeah, he completely stuck his head in the sand when it came to the worst genocide of his tenure; Rwanda.

Plus I think that anyone educated can see that the "taking of Iraq" was purely symbolic and that what matters more is the fact that our troops will be involved there for years.

Or truly educated people will actually study the region, and understand that it wasn't purely symbolic.

[Rudey]

We should have nuked vietnam and we should have nuked Iraq as well.

-Rudey

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by Rudey
We should have nuked vietnam and we should have nuked Iraq as well.

-Rudey

The only bad thing about that is the radiation cloud. What if the wind was blowing in the direction of Isreal or Jordan?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
The only bad thing about that is the radiation cloud. What if the wind was blowing in the direction of Isreal or Jordan?

Well, with all of the money we've already spent over there, we could have built a giant solar powered fan to make sure the radiation cloud blows towards Iran.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
The only bad thing about that is the radiation cloud. What if the wind was blowing in the direction of Isreal or Jordan?

Because weather patterns move from West to East. That's why, during the cold war, the placement of tactical nuclear weapons in Central Europe freaked the Russians out. Plenty of the really nasty radioactive material would have descended on Russian cities.

[_Opi_]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
The only bad thing about that is the radiation cloud. What if the wind was blowing in the direction of Isreal or Jordan?

^ and palestine and Oman and Qatar .....

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by _Opi_
^ and palestine and Oman and Qatar .....

People, please actually understand how radioactive residue disperses from a nuclear blast before you jump on the bandwagon of falicy.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
The only bad thing about that is the radiation cloud. What if the wind was blowing in the direction of Isreal or Jordan?

True. I've thought about this and I think RACooper might have said something about it too. I believe there are mini nukes right? And I believe there is the ability to use other large weapons that don't have radiation. If there aren't, napalm works.

-Rudey

[_Opi_]

PhiRuss,

meaning, radiation cloud can shift with the wind?

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by _Opi_
PhiRuss,

meaning, radiation cloud can shift with the wind?

Over a small area, and not large enough so that if important Iraqi cities were nuked, Israel would have been effective.

I've never heard a weather man talk about how the weather in New York will effect the weather in Chicago a few days later.

Nuclear clouds, like the weather, move from west to east. This is one of the first things that you learn when you study nuclear defense policy.

[AlphaGamDiva]

Originally posted by justamom
I think in the initial post it was clear that it was an E-MAIL forwarded to me. I guess I wrongly figured the intro to the post would keep it on the lighter side.

Me-"This may have been posted-don't know, but if there can be a zillion anti Bush threads, this should be OK. It's an e-mail so if you want to argue with it, I'll forward responses to the guy that sent it to me! " No rolling eyes or red faced smilies. No serious intro...

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if you DID refer to Bush or Laura any way you desired.

On the "political discourse" point-
I think I recall a thread about how Laura MURDERED someone in a car accident??? Now that's real relevant.

I totally agree with you on your point of coming from BOTH sides of the Isle. Indeed it is.

I don't like this war either.

if it's any consolation, JAM, and if you are even still reading this horrifically offensive thread, i'm with you. now i am taking a moment to vent this:

i also believe that the media is largely liberal....ppl scream and fuss about FOX, b/c Lord knows we can't have ONE network that leans ever-so-slightly to the right when NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc all lean to the left. a lil brian williams, dan rather, etc., anyone? the same goes for GC, apparently. it's just sadly amusing to me that liberals are the ones who scream and jump and cry about ppl being open minded, but yet they can't be "open minded" about the thoughts and opinions of conservatives. yay, i love hypocrits, too! liberals can have all the anti-Bush threads they want, but JAM wants to make one innocent thread about Bush and this war that isn't negative (or at least isn't hateful), and then it gets warped into that. can't have conservatives say anything on the board....ppl's heads might explode. i know we all attack each other, but it seems more hostile coming from the left.....but that may only be b/c there seem to be more lefties than righties....or b/c i am a rightie....who knows? all i know is that i found the email interesting, nothing to get huffy about.

as far as this: Laura Bush did kill someone in a car accident. I think that's relevant if we're going to attack Kerry for mundane things, like marrying a rich woman or looking "Scary."-GP

ok, i read the article (in reader's digest) that you mentioned when you first brought this up (in some thread discussing kerry's wife not being American) a few months back......when you say "killed"/"murdered" as you do here (and as you have mentioned before), you make it sound like she got in a hummer with bazookas and took out after this guy. it was an ACCIDENT, as car accidents happen. she accidentally ran a stop sign that she wasn't able to see, as was reported that other ppl could not see and also ran. the ACCIDENT was labeled as such, and there ya go. so please....i ask you politely to shut up about laura bush, the murderer. and while i do believe that kerry is indeed scary looking, he also is scary, to me, for this country. i don't think this is the time for a complete change in our government.

just wanted to get that out. thanks!

back on topic, the email may be a little to the right (a little ), but it does show that this is not the first president to take some action. i don't like war, but i stand behind this one as it is about the liberation of a people so oppressed it's unfathomable. talk about oil and revenge and whatever all you want to, lefties, but this rightie believes in what this country is accomplishing. war is not pretty or easy or quick.....it takes a lot of courage and patience to take care of something that is so horrible and was going on for so long.