| W0000T! You Gotta Love It! [message #33416] |
Wed, 23 July 2003 11:09  |
 |
K9Trooper
Messages: 821
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
From Rush
On Monday, I reiterated this shocking but true fact: Democratic leaders see George W. Bush as a bigger threat to the United States than any foreign enemy. They'll cause any sort of damage to the nation, and fix it later when they get their power back. So when Democrats heard reports that our brave military forces had cornered and killed Saddam Hussein's two sadistic sons Uday and Qusay, they said, "Aw, darn it." It's the same reaction they had to Tom Brokaw's recent interview with Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay.
 
Kay said that he's seen plenty of WMDs found in Iraq, but that the administration is waiting to release it. The administration may wait as long as six months to tell us of the caches they've found - a time frame that would put the revelation of the weapons every one from the UN to Bill Clinton to the EU to EIB knows Saddam had smack dab in the middle of the Democrat primary season. Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and John Warner (R-VA) said they'd seen the same stuff and agreed it couldn't yet be released. You see, Democrats have nothing new or alternative to offer that's positive. They've positioned themselves so that they can only succeed if the nation suffers.
I'm not saying they want another terrorist attack, but they're ready to pounce when one inevitably happens. Contrarily, good news hurts the liberal left. For example: if these two thugs have indeed assumed Mesopotamian temperature, you're going to have reduced attacks on American troops - and that means the Democratic reliance on blowing our casualties all out of proportion will be reduced. It's widely believed that Uday and Qusay were directing the attacks on our troops, this guerilla warfare and these sniper attacks, so this will prove a devastating blow to pro-Saddam forces while at the same time encourage average Iraqis to accelerate the pace of rebuilding.
Meanwhile, you have Terry McAuliffe out there saying Bush is "the biggest liar in presidential history," and Dick Gephardt attacking Bush's foreign policy as "machismo and arrogant unilateralism" in the mold of John Wayne. Can you imagine Kofi Annan or Jacques Chirac in any one of The Duke's roles? Gephardt's remarks to the San Francisco Bar Association attempt to rewrite history just like these attempts to deny Saddam had any WMDs and to claim that Bush promised a "cakewalk" in Iraq. Yet on the very day the Democrats think they see their big chance to smear this president, we nab two Aces from the Iraqi leadership. You think we need NATO and the UN when we are NATO and the UN, Dick? You think we don't need machismo and John Wayne? This is why you guys just don't get it.
Near the end of Tuesday's broadcast, a caller asked me just how the Democrats and the press are going to react to the news of Uday and Qusay's deaths. Their reaction will be, "Damn it! Damn it to hell! Aw, gee, why did they have to get those two now? We were on a roll, Bush was incompetent, whole war was blown, and now we got those two - damn."
That's going to be the reaction of the Democrats, and the media will pretty much join that reaction, and then there will be the questions, "Is it really them, or is Bush just saying it? We want to see the bodies. Bush has lied about so much, Bush has made up so much, let's see the bodies. Why didn't he get them sooner? How come it's taken this long? This is an incompetent president. We bombed them three times, how many bombs have we wasted? How many cruise missiles did we waste? How many soldiers' lives did it take to get these two?"
And folks, the attacks on the American military will probably drop considerably because these two clowns were leading the insurgent movement of the Saddam Fedayeen. The liberals are going to be devastated. Remember, whatever is good news for America, is bad news for them.
Rush
R.I.P. TreyD. You will be missed, but not forgotten.
|
|
|
|
| W0000T! You Gotta Love It! [message #33425] |
Wed, 23 July 2003 11:41  |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I hope he's right about the WMD's being found.
We have lost a LOT of credibility in the international community.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
| W0000T! You Gotta Love It! [message #33606] |
Wed, 23 July 2003 22:23 |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Iraq has had plenty of time to execute such precautions of hiding WMD. The leaders of the late regime could have easily predicted the frustration of the American population and the following dissent of Bush's policies upon nothing weapon-wise being found for some time. My previous posts most likely conveyed my opposition to the war, but why should the world sit and watch as Hussein and others in power suppress an entire country and disobey disarming orders? Being the teenage middle-class American that I am, I know not much about the whole picture of the recent conflict, nor the Gulf War, but why didn't we oust Hussein's regime back in 1991?
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| W0000T! You Gotta Love It! [message #33704] |
Thu, 24 July 2003 11:09 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| K9Trooper |
| NeoSaber |
| setstyle |
but why didn't we oust Hussein's regime back in 1991?
|
The short answer, politics overrode common sense.
|
In 1991 we thought the war was going to be tougher and longer than we thought. So we felt we needed to have the backing of the Arab worl. One of the conditions was that we would only liberate Kuwiat(sp). We were not to go after Saddam. The objective of Desert Storm was met and even though a lot of people (including me) felt like Saddam should have been a major target also.
|
Imagine yourself in my shoes. Over there, and wondering why we are still seeing his ugly mug on t.v. talking smack, and there are no planes taking off the carrier to go fix the problem.
Then your president comes on t.v. and says, " We have accomplished the mission."
Grrrrrrrrrrr.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| W0000T! You Gotta Love It! [message #38729] |
Tue, 12 August 2003 06:28 |
|
|
Repetitive scenario.
No WMD in Iraq? They're in Syria. No WMD in Syria? They're in Iran. No WMD in Iran? They're in Libia...ETC...
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
| W0000T! You Gotta Love It! [message #38777] |
Tue, 12 August 2003 12:11 |
Bearxor
Messages: 137
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| setstyle |
Iraq has had plenty of time to execute such precautions of hiding WMD. The leaders of the late regime could have easily predicted the frustration of the American population and the following dissent of Bush's policies upon nothing weapon-wise being found for some time. My previous posts most likely conveyed my opposition to the war, but why should the world sit and watch as Hussein and others in power suppress an entire country and disobey disarming orders? Being the teenage middle-class American that I am, I know not much about the whole picture of the recent conflict, nor the Gulf War, but why didn't we oust Hussein's regime back in 1991?
|
Because back then we felt that the UN could work. Saddam basically surrendred to the UN, and the UN allowed him and his regime to continue to hold power as long as certain conditions were met.
In the gulf war, we actually invaded Iraq. We had forces stationed IN S.Iraq in several villages. The villagers all welcomed the US and UN and celebrated. They thought they were rid of Saddam. Then we left. Can anyone guess what happened then?
Saddam sent attack 'copters into these villaged and leveled them. He felt that they were no longer pure since they were tarnished by the west.
signatures suck
|
|
|
|
| W0000T! You Gotta Love It! [message #39280] |
Wed, 13 August 2003 20:34 |
 |
jon200000
Messages: 23
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Ok this is my take on the whole Iraq/terror international conflict thing. I warn u what I have to say this post is like a book but it's hard to try and describe the whole situation in a nutshell on a forum. If your interested in what I know and think then read on, if not then sorry for taking up the space. I apologize.
At the end of the first gulf war, the Iraqis who thought Saddam was on his way out for good had staged a rebellion which had been brutally crushed by Saddam and his Loyalists. Before this when the Iraqi army was slaughtered and pushed out of Kuwait, general Schwartzkoff had a personal meeting with one of the Iraqi generals and had basically made a deal that included several things.
1. The American pows that the Iraqis had would be returned to them.
2. The Iraqi general specifically asked if helicopters could be used over certain areas in Iraq, which was granted by Schwartzkoff.
The only thing that mattered for Schwartzkoff at the time was the securing of the American pows being held by the Iraqs. The only thing that mattered to Saddam and his regime was the ability to stop the uprising and save the regime from being destroyed by those who opposed him. The ability to use helicopter gunships at the time of the uprising was a life saver for Saddam. The uprising was crushed and thousands were brutally tortured and killed and the Americans got their pows secured and then the coalition could call it a day and everyone could go back home safe and sound. Except for that 1 pilot they never found...
Like KIRBY098 has reafirmed, many involved in the first gulf war fealt at the time that ending the war there was not enough and that Saddam needed to be liquidated. The brutal suppression of the uprising added insult to injury for those who fealt this way, hence the Paul Wolfowitz doctrine. Paul Wolfowitz fealt much the same way KIRBY098 fealt and wrote this document as a response to his fealings of discontent with the conditions in which the first Gulf war ended in. This document was later "refined" and then after the pretext of the sept11 attacks on NYC/Washington Bush and Blair made the political offensive in making a case to go to war in Iraq, after Afghanistan was taken care of. Saddams regime was ousted, his two terds for sons were liqudated and now his days are numbered.
One the down side: The UN's ability to do anything effectively at this point is in serious question. Blair is in the middle of a political powder keg, especially because of this DR.Kelly "suicide". Bush is raking in tens of millioins of dollars to support his reelection while 60+ American troops are kia after the war in Iraq has been officially declared over. The American economy is still not hot while interest rates are rock bottom. Troops that are on the frontlines in Iraq are exhausted and fedup of not knowing when they might be able to go home.
Other countries and factions in the world are trying to take advantage of anything they can right now. I believe that North Korea and Iran were on the famous axis of evil list, so when will they come into play in all this and how? International terrorist attacks are on the rise again, and in a somewhat similar pattern prior to the sept11 attacks. The seizure of the rpg's in Newark today were a good thing, but a sad and scary affirmation of what lengths people will go to to make money and harm western interests. With all the things that went good for Bush so far, all it takes is one event at any time of any day make things dive south for him and his administration. I don't care how much power and clout Bush has behind him, I would not want to be in his shoes right now.
Oh yeah. Even if they did find good hard undeniable evidence of wmd in Iraq, wouldn't they want to release the evidence right away so that everyone could see that they were correct about their assumptions? Instead they are planning on keeping their findings secret until the reelection so that they can KO the democrats? How would that go over with the American public and the familys of the dead soldiers that made the ultimate sacrifice for their country? Somehow theres more to that than what was said because it just doesn't add up. Either it's a stalling tactic or pure bs speculation, or a bad judgement call by the administration. Either way it doesn't make sense that they would suppress that kind of evidence for so long when they had to go through such a s$it storm to get it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
