0
   

... So help me, Allah.

 
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 12:26 am
mesquite wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
Bush is no doubt the most outspokenly Christian president we've ever had, or had in centuries, but at the end of the day, Bush hasn't given anything of particular value to the Christian community. I look at it this way: We were attacked. This isn't like Vietnam. We got hit on our own soil. What other response should we take? Would it really have been better if the president were on television, shaking his finger and still demanding an apology from Bin Laden?

Yes, we were attacked by fundamentalist islamic militants based in Afghanistan and supported by the islamic fundamentalist Taliban regime.

There has been precious little criticism either domestically or internationally of GW Bush for the action against Al- qaeda and the Taliban.

Agreed.

Quote:
The criticism has been for taking his eye off the ball and diverting resources from the action in Afghanistan to the
PNAC primary goal of deposing Saddam Hussein.

You appear to have swallowed the Bush spin hook, line and sinker.

This quote from Hermann Goering is appropriate to your remarks.
Quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1782913#1782913

Those comments were not made at the Nuremburg trials, they were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist. Goering's words were published along with many other prisoners' words when Gilbert published them in a book entitled Nuremburg Diary.

To apply Goering's lesson to today would mean that there was no threat and of course, 3000 dead American people is what defines the threat. On November 6, 2006, for about a day, the DOD website published papers found in Iraq on how to build an atomic bomb. We also know Saddam had WMD because we were the very ones that gave him chemical weapon technology in the late 1970's and again in the mid-1980s. We recruited Saddam in our fight against Iran. It's remotely possible that Reagan was with Saddam on his genocide of the Kurds, who were pro-Iranian. Reagan never denounced the act, nor did Bush41.

We of all people knew what Saddam was capable of because he was once, in effect, our own hired gun. There is no question that Sadam Hussein would bomb Israel, for openers. We know that Saddam had exported terrorism to other countries by virtue of his hiring suicide bombers at $25,000 a shot, going to the families of his hired suicide bombers. This kind of a person with nuclear weapons would hand them out to Sunni terrorists for use in the United States.

The jury is out on whether we tacitly allowed Saddam to annex Kuwait militarily, and then prepared for war to fight after Saddam took action.

I can understand the invasion of Iraq. War is fought on many fronts. The fact that Bush had the Taliban and OBL on the run in '01 and '02 doesn't excuse the letup of the action in Afghanistan, particularly while Osama Bin Laden is still alive.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 06:08 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:

Those comments were not made at the Nuremburg trials, they were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist. Goering's words were published along with many other prisoners' words when Gilbert published them in a book entitled Nuremburg Diary.


I am glad to see that you followed the link that Setanta provided in the post that I referenced, but why quibble about the use of the preposition "at" when it is meaningless to the value of the quote?

Monte Cargo wrote:
To apply Goering's lesson to today would mean that there was no threat and of course, 3000 dead American people is what defines the threat.

How does this relate to Iraq? You are simply adding support to Goering's statement.

Monte Cargo wrote:
On November 6, 2006, for about a day, the DOD website published papers found in Iraq on how to build an atomic bomb.


I don't find that surprising at all. I would expect to find similar papers in any country large enough to have some sort of weapons program.

Monte Cargo wrote:
The jury is out on whether we tacitly allowed Saddam to annex Kuwait militarily, and then prepared for war to fight after Saddam took action.

Would that be the same jury that is deliberating on whether or not a plane hit the pentagon and if in fact the U.S. actually went to the moon? I think I understand where you are coming from a bit better now.

Monte Cargo wrote:
I can understand the invasion of Iraq. War is fought on many fronts. The fact that Bush had the Taliban and OBL on the run in '01 and '02 doesn't excuse the letup of the action in Afghanistan, particularly while Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

When you are in the position to pick your battles, it is wise to choose those that will have a high likelyhood of achieving the objective and contributing to the end game. Pie in the sky or revenge for Poppy are not good reasons to engage. There was no choice but to let up in Afghanistan due the the misadventure in Iraq sucking up the resources.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 01:31 am
mesquite wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:

Those comments were not made at the Nuremburg trials, they were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist. Goering's words were published along with many other prisoners' words when Gilbert published them in a book entitled Nuremburg Diary.


I am glad to see that you followed the link that Setanta provided in the post that I referenced, but why quibble about the use of the preposition "at" when it is meaningless to the value of the quote?

I saw the link that you included in your post, but I actually visted another link on the snopes website to investigate Goerings quote, that was making the rounds on the internet. I would think anyone astute enough to care what historical figures said would also care about the circumstances under where and how the quote was originated. This quote was not part of the record of the actual Nuremburg trials, it was uttered by a dejected and depressed prisoner.
Monte Cargo wrote:
To apply Goering's lesson to today would mean that there was no threat and of course, 3000 dead American people is what defines the threat.

Quote:
How does this relate to Iraq? You are simply adding support to Goering's statement.

I'm not supporting Goering's statement, which has been somewhat turned into some sort of an antiwar theme to attack Bush with for invading Iraq.
Quote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
On November 6, 2006, for about a day, the DOD website published papers found in Iraq on how to build an atomic bomb.

I don't find that surprising at all. I would expect to find similar papers in any country large enough to have some sort of weapons program.

They weren't allowed to develop those kinds of weapons.
Quote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
The jury is out on whether we tacitly allowed Saddam to annex Kuwait militarily, and then prepared for war to fight after Saddam took action.

Would that be the same jury that is deliberating on whether or not a plane hit the pentagon and if in fact the U.S. actually went to the moon? I think I understand where you are coming from a bit better now.

The full truth of the U.S. position has not been completely disclosed yet, and I'm nowhere near as quick as some to condemn the United States, based on tidbits of information that are less than completely reliable information.
Quote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
I can understand the invasion of Iraq. War is fought on many fronts. The fact that Bush had the Taliban and OBL on the run in '01 and '02 doesn't excuse the letup of the action in Afghanistan, particularly while Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

When you are in the position to pick your battles, it is wise to choose those that will have a high likelyhood of achieving the objective and contributing to the end game. Pie in the sky or revenge for Poppy are not good reasons to engage. There was no choice but to let up in Afghanistan due the the misadventure in Iraq sucking up the resources.

It appears that you have swallowed the Howard Dean/Michael Moore extremist anti-war propoganda hook, line and sinker. Let's face it. There is a faction of people in thisc country who long for the romantic nostalgia of protesting the Vietnam War and who have finally found a reason to rekindle the old fire by protesting the Iraq campaign. With regard to your point about being spread too thinly, I think it was Murtha who made the statement that the United States was spread way too thin to be effective and deliver on any threats to other nations about three days before we killed Al Zarquowi.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 07:33 am
From today's Chicago Tribune (page 3):

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6764/zwischenablage00xr2.jpg
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 01:20 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:
Let's face it. There is a faction of people in thisc country who long for the romantic nostalgia of protesting the Vietnam War and who have finally found a reason to rekindle the old fire by protesting the Iraq campaign.

For the record I was 100% behind the Afghan action and I have been protesting the Iraq conflict since early in 2002 when it first became apparent that Bush was pushing an Iraqi invasion. As for any nostalgia of protesting the Vietnam War by me please see this post[/u].

Monte Cargo wrote:
With regard to your point about being spread too thinly, I think it was Murtha who made the statement that the United States was spread way too thin to be effective and deliver on any threats to other nations about three days before we killed Al Zarquowi.

Have you seen some improvement in the Iraqi situation since Zarqawi's demise? You are aware I hope that Zarqawi wasn't even a pimple on our butt pre US invasion of Iraq[/u].

While GW struts like a banty rooster, our original problem in Afghanistan is far from over. PBS Frontline ran an enlightening program titled Return of the Taliban last October. It will be re-aired January 9, 2007. I recommend watching it. It can also be viewed online at your leisure here[/u].

Quote:
NARRATOR: After the fall of the Taliban five years ago, some experts warned of a nightmare scenario: the Taliban and al Qaeda would escape from Afghanistan into neighboring Pakistan and set up new command centers far out of America's reach. One of them is here, Pakistan's oldest city. Peshawar is gateway to the Khyber Pass, capital of the Northwest Frontier. Long a free-wheeling center for drug smugglers, gun runners and jihadists, this was the birthplace of al Qaeda in the 1980s. Today the city is a new base of operations for the Taliban. The Taliban's influence is increasingly clear. Billboards are now censored. Women on the street are fully covered. Conservative mullahs hold high political offices. Those in the know here tease visitors with rumors of al Qaeda's most wanted men.Transcript
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 06:50 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
On November 6, 2006, for about a day, the DOD website published papers found in Iraq on how to build an atomic bomb.

I don't find that surprising at all. I would expect to find similar papers in any country large enough to have some sort of weapons program.

They weren't allowed to develop those kinds of weapons.

Right.

They had papers on how to build an atomic bomb.

But they were not allowed to build an atomic bomb. Sanctions and inspections were set up accordingly.

And they did not build an atomic bomb. As the US authorities eventually found out themselves, there is no evidence that the Iraqis engaged in any attempt to build an atomic bomb since the first Gulf War.

So what was the problem that required invading the country again?
0 Replies
 
Maries
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 02:49 am
November 16, 2005


The Democrat's Drumbeat to War
Mike Burleson

When accolades are given for bringing down the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, due credit should go to the Democrats and the Old Media. Not since World War 2 has there been such a national consensus to go to war, at least until that war actually started in 2003.

President Bush has been accused by both the press and liberals of lying to get us into war with Iraq, and somehow "tainting" the evidence to make it more convincing. Accusations from the left have been tantamount to cries of treason, and appear to be leading toward impeachment proceedings.

Yet in a new Commentary Magazine article (Who is Lying About Iraq by Norman Podhoretz), a list of top Democrats from the Clinton Presidency right up to the Invasion clearly reveals not only their complicity in going to war, but an fervor to destroy Saddam's alleged cache of weapons of mass destruction. The list includes top Clinton aids such as Secretary of State Madeline Albright, then Vice President Al Gore, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and Defense Secretary William Cohen, along with President Clinton himself.

Not since the Spanish American War has there been such a drumbeat from the press to make war on an aggressor nation. Numerous articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post cite the universal assumption that Iraq possessed WMD.

As war clouds loomed during Bush's administration, such Democratic leaders as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry expressed the same notion. These top Congressmen garnered their knowledge from the same intelligence sources as Bush and America's top military leaders.

It's now obvious everyone was wrong on WMDs in Iraq. Not only was President Bush mistaken, but Democrats and the Old Media, along with world leaders in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Whether they were destroyed by Saddam in the 1990's or spirited away during the buildup to war may never be firmly established. It is clear Saddam did possess such weapons, which were used against Iranians in the 1980's and against Iraqi Kurds.

Instead of admitting how they too were duped along with the rest of the world, Democrats have begun the "blame game". In taking such a stand they have sold out to the leftist fringe of their Party, led by anti-war critic Howard Dean. It now appears their brief foray to the Center in the 90's, led by Bill Clinton, was a temporary phase. With America's very existence at stake in the War on Terror, American's will unlikely continue to condone a Party of divisiveness and appeasement. This is good news for Republicans, who continue to stand up against radical Islam, keep taxes low, and expand America's global economy into a new century.

It is however a sad epitaph for Democrats, who once stood for defeating communism, prosperity at home, and Civil Rights for all. Now they are all for obstructionism: anti-family (supporting gay rights, abortion, and radical feminism), anti- Christian, anti-gun, anti-business, anti-war, and anti-American.


###
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:24 am
Maries, the Dems are complicit but they had the same intel the rest of the world did. And that came from Bushie and Powell etc. Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, ElBaradei were the experts who knew and got Swift Boated and slandered for telling the truth. Blix was in the process of disarming Saddam at the time of the invasion and ElBaradei called Bushie's evidence fake, fabricated and forged. Bushie couldn't work with Blix and carry out the PNAC blueprint for world domination. I have no problem with giving certain Dems their fair share of credit for Bushie's crimes against humanity but the bottom line is Bushie is the American Presidunce and so America must wear the mantle of shame. Bushie's war crimes are America's war crimes.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:40 am
Frank Rich: Senator Clinton's 'mission unaccomplished' on Iraq
link
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 11:17 am
little gift to joe here
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/01/military_1.php
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Feb, 2007 07:29 pm
The man who wrote that article and anyone who agrees with it is simply a Christian Fascist, which automatically qualifies them for the hypocrite title too. What jerk would say "NO! YOU MUST DO IT OUR WAY OR ELSE! THIS IS THE LAND OF US BEING FREE, NOT YOU!!"?
0 Replies
 
snookered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Feb, 2007 05:04 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I'm trying to decide if this is an important issue or not. Seriously. It's difficult.


Laughing I was also! It certainly wasn't worthy of so many words. Besides it doesn't matter what book a politician takes an oath on...they are either corupt or not.
Besides, not everyone believes in the Bible. In fact, it is the highest selling fictional writing ever.
0 Replies
 
craos
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:17 pm
Looks like everyone do their studies.. good. Next find the meanings of the Truth.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2021 at 06:08:14