Get Your Facts Straight!

after all that and your still wrong :thumbdown:

I've come to the conclusion it doesn't matter why the US is in Irag, just get the job done. Stop worrying about appeasing the public, bomb the crap out of the enemy.

To many times here and elsewhere I read the opponents of the war in Iraq mischaracterize their "talking points" with "No blood for Oil" or "We took our eye off Bin Laden in Afghanistan to get bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq" or "no neocon war for Halliburton and Israel" and most famously "Bush lied thousands died."

Bush's "neoconservative" foreign policy embodies the single greatest hope for free peoples who just want to live in peace and for mankind as a whole.

anyone who looked at the intelligence data on Iraq shared the same opinion about the threat of weapons of mass destruction. . .former presidents Bush and Clinton, an overwhelming majority in the U.S Senate, U.S. congressmen, friendly and not-so friendly foreign governments, Iraqi exiles, and numerous intelligence organizations all in "Slam Dunk" agreement.

Furthermore, at the time Saddam was only one of only a handful of people in human history to have acutally authorized the use of WMD on his ememies!

And finally, since Pelosi, Reed, Murtha, Feingold, Clinton, Biden, Schumer, Byrd, ect, ect. have yet to produce any stealth document that (a) warned there was no WMDs, and (b) was knowingly withheld from the Congress, your side of the arguement is, at best, Cindy Sheehan propaganda.

The other history I recall vividly was the debate and speeches made in the run up to the war. This is rich folks because it was the democrats who beat their breasts and monopolized the Senate floor for 2 days to prove that they could out-macho the "smoke-em-out" and "dead-or-alive" George Bush in laying out the case against Saddam Hussein. . .especially coming on the heels of seeing "the cowboys" amazing victory in the removal of a battle tested, fanatical regime favored by geography and climate, residing in a landlocked country on the other side of the globe.

After all, it wasn't just Americans who couldn't believe their eyes, the "civilized world" also watched in awe as an American warship had to be towed home from the Middle East with a hole the size of a tractor trailor in it without any military response whatsoever

Genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American jets patrolling the no-fly zones

the democrats in the Senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons OTHER than just his possession of WMD

"...whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"); fears of terrorism (" ...whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens.")

Democrats who claim we took our eye off AL Qaeda when we went into Iraq refuse to explain how getting out will allow us to put both our eyes back on them when they reside in nuclear Pakistan -- all the while knowing full well once a nation establishes a nuclear arsenal, we become self deterred and they become invulnerable.

"He who wishes peace should prepare for war," is the ancient wisdom -- and it remains true today because there is no deterrence for an enemy who aches for heaven.

I'll end this little rant by saying that if mans nature is fixed, if war is inevitable, if the evil of men and tyrants need fighting, and yes, radical Islamic militants and their masters who threaten our way of life and our very existence need fighting, Bush's "neoconservative" foreign policy embodies the single greatest hope for free peoples who just want to live in peace and for mankind as a whole

if mans nature is fixed

if war is inevitable

if the evil of men and tyrants need fighting

radical Islamic militants and their masters who threaten our way of life and our very existence need fighting

To many times here and elsewhere I read the opponents of the war in Iraq mischaracterize their "talking points" with "No blood for Oil" or "We took our eye off Bin Laden in Afghanistan to get bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq" or "no neocon war for Halliburton and Israel" and most famously "Bush lied thousands died."

I like history, politics, and especially "U.S. foriegn policy". I like it alot. I study it alot. My wife claims I'm obsessed with it to her girlfriends. . . Anyway there are 2 things I remember vividly in the lead-up to Opperation: Iraqi Freedom. . .Therefore I can say without hesitation these sentiments are intellectually dishonest for a variety of reasons beyond the obvious consideration that almost anyone who looked at the intelligence data on Iraq shared the same opinion about the threat of weapons of mass destruction. . .former presidents Bush and Clinton, an overwhelming majority in the U.S Senate, U.S. congressmen, friendly and not-so friendly foreign governments, Iraqi exiles, and numerous intelligence organizations all in "Slam Dunk" agreement.

Furthermore, at the time Saddam was only one of only a handful of people in human history to have acutally authorized the use of WMD on his ememies!

And finally, since Pelosi, Reed, Murtha, Feingold, Clinton, Biden, Schumer, Byrd, ect, ect. have yet to produce any stealth document that (a) warned there was no WMDs, and (b) was knowingly withheld from the Congress, your side of the arguement is, at best, Cindy Sheehan propaganda.

The other history I recall vividly was the debate and speeches made in the run up to the war. This is rich folks because it was the democrats who beat their breasts and monopolized the Senate floor for 2 days to prove that they could out-macho the "smoke-em-out" and "dead-or-alive" George Bush in laying out the case against Saddam Hussein. . .especially coming on the heels of seeing "the cowboys" amazing victory in the removal of a battle tested, fanatical regime favored by geography and climate, residing in a landlocked country on the other side of the globe.

After that miraculous achievment, the democrat party knew they had to come out hard against Saddam, the war on terror, radical islam, and all the rest of it, if they ever wanted to have a chance at gaining American trust and power again. After all, it wasn't just Americans who couldn't believe their eyes, the "civilized world" also watched in awe as an American warship had to be towed home from the Middle East with a hole the size of a tractor trailor in it without any military response whatsoever.

Now if our sinner in chief "cherry picked" the dangers of Saddams WMDs, then the democrats in Congress in their infinite wisdom used a far broader approach and went well beyond George Bush in making a more far reaching case for war. . .Genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American jets patrolling the no-fly zones. It was the democrats in the U.S. Senate not Carl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz, that pushed and legislated a war to reform and restore the wider Middle East: "...whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region".

Even more importantly, the democrats in the Senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons OTHER than just his possession of WMD. They now, quite convientley I might add, have forgotten that entirely.

I invite you read the senators' October 2002 resolution. It is a model of sobriety and judiciousness in authorizing a war. There are facts cited such as the violation of agreements; moral considerations such as genocide; real worries about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam (e.g., "...whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"); fears of terrorism (" ...whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens.")

Thus the honest and moral argument for the now contrite "cut and run" democrats would be something like: "I know now that Saddam did not try to kill a former president, did not commit genocide, did not attack four of his neighbors, did not harbor anti-American terrorists, did not ignore U.N. and 1991 peace accords, and did not attack Americans enforcing the no-fly zones. . .and so I regret my vote."

Or if the former democrat supporters of the war had character, they would be more honest still: "Yes, Saddam was guilty of those other 22 writs, but none of them justified the war that I voted for, and I should not have included them in the resolution."

I know sure as sh!t none of them will ever say: "I voted to cover my ass! If the war proved swift and relatively low-cost like Bosnia or Afghanistan, I was on record for it; if it got bad like Mogadishu or Lebanon, then I wasn't the commander-in-chief who conducted it."

Moreover, had we lost 100 in birthing democracy and not 3,700, or seen 12 million smiling faces with purple fingers only and not the carnage from a IED on CNN's and MSNBC's nightly broadcasts, today's critics would be arguing over who first thought up and implemented Bush's new "neoconservative" foriegn policy.

We never took our eye of Al qaida to get into a war with Iraq! We were already at de-facto war with Iraq pre 9/11, unless you don't consider imposing crippling sanctions and controling 2/3rds of a sovereign countries airspace for over a decade are acts of war? Democrats who claim we took our eye off al Qaeda when we went into Iraq refuse to explain how getting out will allow us to put both our eyes back on them when they reside in nuclear Pakistan -- all the while knowing full well once a nation establishes a nuclear arsenal, we become self deterred and they become invulnerable.

Whats even more weird is the democrats who assure us that the war is "lost" and the surge hopeless, but yet do not cut off funding for it, damn its architect general Petrayus, and again refuse to explain how in good conscious they can send more U.S. soldiers into harms way for a war they assure us we can't possibly win. Crazy right?

And then there are the crazies like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and the rest of the Cindy Sheehan "anti-war" crowd who believe that America is too healthy, too sophisticated, and too enlightened to ever risk our safety in something as primitive as war. They are ignorant or choose to be ignorant by denying a simple fact: war is eternal. It has always been part of the human condition. It is, as Heraclitus wrote, "the father of us all." War is as old as dirt and human history should teach us that it cannot be eliminated, only avoided by deterrence. "He who wishes peace should prepare for war," is the ancient wisdom -- and it remains true today because there is no deterrence for an enemy who aches for heaven.

I can assure all of you when America had a "Department of War," Americans still die overseas even after its name was changed to the less hostile "Department of Defense" -- teaching us that we can repackage and rename war through ambiguity, and good intentions, but never alter its brutal essence.

Jack Kennedy once said: "Mankind must put an end to War or War will put an end to Mankind". . .I'll end this little rant by saying that if mans nature is fixed, if war is inevitable, if the evil of men and tyrants need fighting, and yes, radical islamic militants and their masters who threaten our way of life and our very existance need fighting, Bush's "neoconservative" foreign policy embodies the single greatest hope for free peoples who just want to live in peace and for mankind as a whole.