Anyone develop Carpal Tunnel?

Ok to all of you.
I am just about at the limit of which I can handle this "discussion"!
Either keep this damned thing civil or I will dump the entire freakin mess!
You guys need to get out and go fish!

There is more to life than sitting in front of a computer screen and argueing politics with somebody you have not met or ever seen before!
Either knock it off and get back to what this site is about or this thread stops and I don't care if Mitch wanted it going or not!

Zippy: How about this....you have to post a fishing report in order to post anything on this thread???

Nu2salt: Halleluya......Halleluya!!!


Val: I continue to be impressed by the cut and paste. I thought Microsoft Windows had a certain size limit. I was wrong !!!

I just saw Bush making a speech in PA on CNN.

He said that knowing what he knows now about Iraq, he would still have done the same thing, and gone to war.

So he is admitting that even if he knew there were no WMD's, even if he knew there was no link between Hussein and Iraq, and Al-Queda, or 9-11, he would still have launched a first strike, and started a war with a sovereign nation which presented no imminent threat and had made no act of war against us or anyone else. With no provocation. With no "just cause". Just because.

(I guess he just got lucky and had all those other convenient excuses to use to sell the rest of us on this. Without the intel on WMD's or the false allegations about links to Al-Queda and 9-11, how many in Congress would have given him that declaration of authorization to use force? And what would the U.N. reaction had been? And what would public opinion have been?)

He apparently feels that we are somehow empowered(divinely?) to go around launching first strikes, invading sovereign countries, and starting wars, absent any imminent threat, absent any provocation, absent any "just cause". Just because they don't like us, or we don't like them. Who's he gonna want to invade next, France and Germany, because they wouldn't help us in Iraq?

He just admitted that he didn't need all those other factors, that he would still have wanted to go to war in Iraq. Would that have flown in Congress, or the U.N., or with the American people? Would we have supported him without all that propaganda? Are we now assuming a posture where the end justifies the means?

And this just makes me even more suspicious than I already was, if that's even possible, that he manipulated and tainted that intel just to make his case, and give him an excuse to go do something he wanted to do before he was ever elected.

Is this a man that we can trust for four more years as Commander-in-Chief of the largest, most powerful military force in the history of the world? Is this a man we can trust to make us SAFER?!? Is that how we make ourselves SAFER?!? By going to war with anyone we, no, HE, feels like, without a just cause? That is not a recipe for WORLD PEACE, that is a recipe for WORLD WAR, and DISASTER, and ARMAGEDDON!!

Everyone who is cheering him at his rallies is so caught up in the moment that they are only looking at where we are, and are forgetting how he got us here, or that he would do the same thing again; go to war with no just cause.

Has everyone gone blind and deaf?

Henry,

Your arguments are becoming less and less logical and coherent, and more difficult to follow. You are all over the map! This is not intended as a put down, simply an observation and friendly, constructive criticism, with all due and sincere respect.

"That is why LIBERALISM is dangerous... because it is... just plain confusing."

I'm sorry if I have confused you, sincerely, no sarcasm. I do not for one second question your intelligence or intuitiveness. Let me try to clarify what it is that I am saying.

I have NEVER suggested Bush should apologize for ANYTHING. I do not believe he has anything to apologize for. I would simply expect that he would acknowledge that the intelligence was inaccurate and that HAD HE KNOWN THEN WHAT HE KNOWS NOW, THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE PURSUED THE SAME COURSE OF ACTION, ON THE SAME TIMETABLE; NOT GONE TO WAR AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BASED UPON THE FACTS AS WE NOW KNOW THEM! I would like to see that he has LEARNED SOMETHING from all of this, and would proceed with more deliberation, consideration, and restraint, in the future, and would not be so quick to rush into a poorly planned military action and occupation.

As for the intel, a couple of points; first, you are still operating under the assumption that the intel in question was produced and interpreted in all good faith, and without any undue influence or pressure from the administration to support a preconceived or contrived conclusion. I happen to disagree, very strongly, and believe there was certainly an agenda, and that the agenda was to build a case for going to war in Iraq, a war that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld WANTED before they were even in power. A fundamental disagreement; you believe them, and I do not.

Be that as it may, you are entitled to your view, as am I, and since we simply disagree on this point, we can agree to do so respectfully, and not belabor this point with further unproductive discussion. Neither of us is going to convince the other otherwise.

SECOND, even discounting my suspicions and distrust of the administration, and my belief that there was such an agenda, you again fail to see that there is a HUGE difference between FAILING TO ACT, and going to all out WAR. I have NEVER suggested that Bush should have done NOTHING, and NOT ACTED on the intelligence in question.

All I have ever said is that he should have exhausted other options and used more diligence and restraint; apply further diplomatic and international pressure and sanctions; continue to pressure Hussein to allow the inspectors back in; increase surveillance, recon, and intel activities; attempt to further verify or confirm his other intelligence; slowly built up our military presence in a measured, calculated, show of force; taken more time to plan any eventual invasion, conquest, and occupation more carefully and thoroughly; escalate more slowly, into limited air strikes, limited special forces incursions and covert ops.... there is an entire RANGE, and an entire CONTINUIM of options and uses of force, between DOING NOTHING, FAILING TO ACT, AND GOING TO WAR AND INVADING AND OCCUPYING THE COUNTRY!! It's not black or white, all or nothing. And he clearly had an accelerated time table, and rushed in, without good plans for the future occupation and stabilization of the country.

Even if Hussein had some sort of WMD's, he had not the means to attack the U.S. If he attacked one of his neighbors, then our justification would have been unquestionable. As far as him passing anything to terrorists, that would be the reason for applying other forms of pressure and increasing surveillance, recon, intel, and covert ops, to make that more difficult and less likely; and again, that threat still exists in the world, maybe not from him, but from other sources; otherwise, why is Cheney telling everyone we are still at risk?

THE SITUATION AT HAND DID NOT PRESENT AN IMMINENT THREAT OR EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE AND ALL OUT USE OF MILITARY FORCE, AS BUSH PORTRAYED IT AND WOULD HAVE HAD US ALL BELIEVE. BUSH'S ACTIONS AND APPROACH ARE UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR HISTORY, AND HAVE PROVEN TO BE INEFFECTIVE, AND HAVE YIELDED UNFAVORABLE RESULTS.

Use the Cuban missile crisis as a comparison.

Kennedy KNEW, he had concrete, confirmed, indisputable PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, that there were WMD's, (nuclear missiles!), in Cuba, 90 miles off our shores. He did not INVADE THE COUNTRY AND ATTEMPT TO REMOVE CASTRO. He demonstrated an appropriate show of force, he leveraged the U.N., and he continued diplomatic efforts with the Soviet Union, to bring about detante.

Even if his intentions were good, (and I maintain they were NOT) Bush has proven to be a poor and ineffective Commander-in-Chief, statesman, and diplomat. END OF DISCUSSION!


None of us have ever supported or otherwise defended or excused the terrorists for their actions. I don't WANT their apologies, I want them incarcerated, or dead! Nor have we ever said Hussein was a nice guy with a bad rap. Your point is baseless, moot, and totally off topic.

We were not fighting to remove a brutal dictator; we were fighting to remove WMD's and to counter what was portrayed as an imminent threat to our national security, and the threat did not exist. We are not, never have been, and should not be, the world's policeman, responsible for removing every brutal dictator that comes along. Half the time we prop them up in the first place. Hussein is a prime example.

If your issue is with human rights, why aren't you leading the charge to invade and conquer Saudi Arabia, one of the WORST human rights offenders in the world, and a well documented and well known supporter and sponsor of terrorism? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. If that is your stance, or Bush's, then you must be consistent or you lose all credibility. What about Iran, North Korea, Syria, many countries in the Mid East and Africa. What about Libya, another major offender of human rights, with ties to terrorism who also had WMD's until Qaddafi disarmed (which aside from capturing Hussein, is probably the only other collateral positive to come out of this mess, but again, the end does not justify the means). Our first responsibility is to our own defense, not the protection of every citizen of the entire world from their own governments. That task is impossible and impractical, and in no way justifies our incursion into Iraq, at that point in time, under those circumstances.

I do not believe that Hussein had any direct ties to Al-Queda. I do not believe that has been proven or even alleged of late. There are no facts in evidence to substantiate this. You are desperately clinging to the propaganda and disinformation which has been debunked and disproven, and making excuse after excuse for an operation that we all now know lacked a valid justification. A couple of lucky breaks and collateral gains (Hussein and Libya) do not justify the means used and the manner in which Bush went about this, or the sacrifice and loss of life which brought them about.

We are not at war in the Phillipines, we are supporting an ally in the protection and defense of their own country, not an occupying force in a country that we have invaded and failed to stabilize. No comparison can be made between the Phillipines, or any other such situation, and our invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq. Nor did we invade Libya, Qaddafi acted of his own volition. And any known terrorist is a criminal and should be apprehended and incarcerated. You are again off topic. Your point is again irrelevant and moot.

In Hussein's case, while again he was admittedly a brutal dictator, there is no credible evidence to support an allegation that he was a terrorist, as are Abu Zuaydah and Abu Sayyaf. If there were and that was the rationale for invading Iraq, the goal being the capture of Hussein, then Bush would have, should have, and could have based his entire case on that and presented that to Congress, the U.N., and the American people. Such was apparently not the case. Again, off topic. The topic is the war in Iraq, and how we got there, not wether or not Hussein was a nice man and a benevolent leader, or wether or not we should pursue a war against terrorism. You continue to equate Iraq to the legitimate war on terrorism, and the two are separate topics. Bush used the war on terrorism as his excuse to wage a war in Iraq, which was politically advantageous to him, personally, for a variety reasons, including his economic and religious agendas.

"Be forewarned. Al-Qaeda's recent attack on Israelis in the Sinai, might mean that they will target Israelis more often (the last was a few years ago in Africa). This could mean interaction between them and Palestinian terrorist groups, hence their joined attacks o the US."

Gee, I thought we captured or killed all of Al-Queda in Afghanistan, and neutralized them as a terrorist threat? I thought they were all on the run, and unable to organize any such efforts? No, no, wait, I thought they were all in Iraq, fighting our troops there? Which is it, Henry? Did we eliminate or neutalize them in Afghanistan, are they all in Iraq fighting our troops, or DOES AL-QUEDA CONTINUE TO PRESENT A THREAT TO THE U.S. AND THE WORLD? If the latter, then how has Bush's war in Iraq served to combat THAT THREAT?

Your comment above again points out that we are not any safer now than we were before we went into Iraq. Since we are no safer now than before going into Iraq, and since we now admit there were no WMD's, no ties to terror, Al-Queda, or 9-11, please tell me again why we went into Iraq, and how we have benefitted, aside from the capture and incarceration of ONE MAN, Saddam Hussein, and the unanticipated, unintentional, collateral bonus of Qaddafi voluntarily disarming? And tell me how the capture of that ONE MAN, has made the world or the U.S. safer? What was the "just cause" for going to war in Iraq, at that time, in that manner, under those circumstances. You have failed to make your case.

"Saddam would have and could have very easily sold WMD information to terrorists, but we cut that risk in general. People like Ted Ked and others say a mushroom cloud is more imminent now because of Iraq. If the terrorists really want to nail us, it doesn't take invading Iraq. Do you think the terrorists will say "Let us not kill more Americans with this suitcase bomb we can sneak in...oh wait..they just bombed Iraq!? Go get them..Allah Akbar!""

I have already addressed the notion of Hussein providing WMD's, which he did not have, to terrorists. I have also addressed the fallacy of his alleged ties to terrorists. But I will indulge you briefly about WMD TECHNOLOGY or information, even though I addressed this above, as well; Hussein is clearly not the only source of this information, and let us not forget who provided him with that information in the first place. So again, since terrorists can still get this information from other sources we are no safer now than before. Again, for the third time, if that were true, why are Bush and Cheney continuing to tell us that we could still be attacked by terrorists using WMD's? Capturing Hussein is not, in and of itself, "just cause" and does not justify Bush's course of action or the manner in which he prosecuted this issue.

"If the terrorists really want to nail us it doesn't take invading Iraq." True.

If the terrorists really want to nail us, INVADING IRAQ WON'T STOP THEM, EITHER! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! INVADING IRAQ WILL NOT PREVENT ANY TERRORISTS FROM SNEAKING IN SUCH A BOMB AND DETONATING IT. DO YOU THINK THE TERRORISTS WILL SAY "LET US GO KILL MORE AMERICANS WITH THIS SUITCASE BOMB WE CAN SNEAK IN... OH WAIT... THEY JUST BOMBED IRAQ!? WAIT, LET US NOT KILL MORE AMERICANS!" ?? DON'T YOU SEE THAT?!? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!! INVADING IRAQ HAS NOT MADE US SAFER, NOR YIELDED ANY BENEFIT WHICH MAKES THE HORROR OF WAR, THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ, THE SACRIFICE OF OUR TROOPS, AND THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF INNOCENT IRAQIS, WORTHWHILE OR JUSTIFIED!! IT HAS ONLY SERVED TO BENEFIT BUSH'S POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND RELIGIOUS AGENDA!

END OF DISCUSSION!!

P.S. Henry, please do not interpret my captials as yelling, I needed to reference your post as I wrote my reply, and I am too lazy to retype the caps in bold; the caps are only to add emphasis. I am NOT yelling.

And I also apologize if my words about fascism and blind, mindless loyalty offends you, but if I said I truly did not believe that you support a fascist agenda with regards to free speech and the right of one to voice his dissent with the President, and it's subsequent implications and consequences, I would be lying, and I do not lie. Period, debating or otherwise.

And you clearly are blindly, and mindlessly loyal to a set of ideals which are diometrically(sp?) opposed to freedom and democracy, and our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Are you aware that military officers, the President, and other government officials, swear a solemn oath to "protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? I think you need to take a long, hard look at that document, particularly the First Amendment; study our history from the first settlers, through the colonial period and the American Revolution; and figure out what the Constitution really means; why it was written; why we need it; how our freedom and democracy depends upon it; and what could happen if our freedom of speech was in any way abridged, compromised, or infringed upon.

I think in this context, YOU, with all due respect, are a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution.

I really don't care wether you "approve" of liberalism or not. As long as this remains a free country founded on our Constitution, liberalism will exist, and cannot be stopped. Only a fascist, oppressive, dictatorship can suppress this, and this is apparently what you want.

As I said to someone else, if the swastika fits, wear it. No offense.