CLICK HERE

good speech, lets hope that if he gets elected all of the flaws in his plans will be fixed since he knows exactly what we want to happen

was he on vacation in texas in the end???

he wasnt on vacation(i dont think) he was just chilling at his ranch in texas


Slayer's Bro

I'm still trying to figure out what it is Bush is defending us against in Iraq. Does anyone else know. Please tell.

Typical I guess.

Remember, a vote for Kerry falls right into what Bin Laden wants. If we vote in Kerry, we are no better than Spain.

Unfortunately, I think Kerry will win. Maybe I will be surprised and my faith will be restored in americans.

$ 7 , 4 4 9 , 9 3 7 , 5 7 8 , 6 9 3 . 8 9 in debt.

...and you guys still defend him. You know damn well in a business situation, he would be fired.




http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

Hoods, I am not going to bother going into the details of the debt. We can go over the minute details forever.

Putting the debt aside, there ARE more important things than the debt.

every person on the face of the earth is in debt..someone owes somebody all the time

Hell, If he would have gotten Laden in the first place, Then it might not be such a close race. But nope, pulling troops out to go after someone who didnt do anything to us was wrong. And now we are suffering another debt for it.

That is the kind of attitude that let Hitler become so powerful.
BTW voted Libertarian.

maybe im takin this wrong but it sounds like you say liberating a people is wrong.?
sounds kinda bull shitty to me.
FLAME

Like diesel so eloquently put it, every damn person is in debt, one way or another. How the do you expect Bush to hunt Laden down in Cave Country. Crazy -ASS Laden is probably chillin somewhere in some palatial cave, kickin it while his kidney machine chugs away.

Crazy extremist...

how we doing laden a favor if anything its worse, bush cant find him


and to liberate people that HATE us seems soooo senseless if we are gonna lose so many american lives. maybe if bush did what he said he was gonna do there would be less casualties, but he doesnt need allies. TEXAS IS TOUGH

ALRIGHT!

There is what ONLY 5 CITIES left in Iraq that are really resisting our aid?!?!
Those are what the news show, not the other 10 or w/e that have the children (boys and girls) being educated and are able to run around the streets with less fear. The women no long have to wear those wierd hats if they do not wish and they no long are worth less then man. People are free. How could you not like this?

sure its great, i just like the people who died for the freedom better than the freed.

hey hoods, how bout i come to your state, you will see me face to face and drive away. Lets see if you can find me in a state, even something like rhode island you wouldn't find me. Thats how hard it is to find one person.

Dont take up for him like that. You dont pull troops out to hunt down someone else. Iraq did not provoke us. First time in history we go and take over a country without being provoked. If the intelligence is as good as they say they are, then dont you think, they should have found him by now.


Iraq war is nothing but revenge. Nothing more unless you want to talk about the oil. Thats his money now.


You all keep bringing up 9-11, remember who did it. And remember hes still at out there somewhere. Bush doesn't care. Lets liberate Iraq. I dont give a fuck about Iraq. These people dont even want us in their country. Wait. They dont want us in Bush's country now.


Its an unjust war where innocent people are getting killed.

oh i was being sarcastic. i could honestly give a shit less if iraqis are free. that should be a second nature, bush should have concentrated on all the bs here. and lets now hope that he can clear this shit up now that hes been re-elected.

but what seriously is the motive to the war, does anyone know? we attacked iraq without knowin for sure, absoulutly sure, about weapons. but then when we dont find any right. SOO how is iraq dangerous, if there are no weapons? im not trying to stir any more arguements ( although the are fun as hell lol) this is a sincere question im hopin a republican can share their side

See the last zillion posts in the AT WAR forum.

do you mean war on terror?

what did iraq have to do with terror, unless theres a new motive but havent heard any lately. all i see in that forum is basically 9/11 unless i missed a new forum

Yawn.....

agreed

Eulogy, They only act that way because they dont know shit about it either. No motive, just revenge and oil that I see. Druid will probally be able to answer your question more clearly Besides the republican way that Real and Stock have just shown you.

Sore loser. LMAO.

Bush wins with the largest percentage since 1988.... yeah, Kerry really had his pulse on America.

Harddrive has consistent brought up the point of Bush transferring troops away from Afghanistan to Iraq. This has been a very good point from the very beginning.
I've done ALOT of reading trying to come up with a solid answer. I could see some troops moved but not the number which where. The most curious question, at least from the political stand point is why would Bush do that if it would reduce the chance for capture of Osama. This election was a long way from a landslide victory but I guarantee you it would of been if Bush could of captured him. I'm willing to bet, Bush would of won the election by margin if 60/40 if not more.
Unfortunately the question remains as to why would he do something which takes away from his 1 true guarantee for re-election.
Here are my thoughts on a few possibilities as to why.
1) There is the obvious point of limited troop resources resulting from the slow reduction in the military size since the end of the cold war.
( For me this really wasn't a big enough reason. I think half of the real reason is people at the top realize it would be better for us if the U.N. troops who are now on site or even Afghan troops where the ones who captured him. There is no doubt we want and DESERVE Osama's head on a platter, but the smart thing would be to let someone else deal with him
2) The Bush administration has a very good idea that they have crippled al Qaeda's ability to successfully carry out another attack and now can hunt him at a much slower pace. I think it obvious he would of escaped by now if he could.
3) There has been a lot of talk in the foreign press that it's doubtful Osama would be taken alive. Many believe there is a good chance he has ordered his body guards to kill him to prevent capture. If this was true, I could see the U.S. pull back a little in the hopes of capturing him alive in a surprise attack once they find out exactly where he is or maybe even during an attempt to make it in to Pakistan.
If at all possible it would be better to capture than kill him, that way we can interrogate him concerning his knowledge of al Qaeda's and other terrorist networks.



All give you two answers, the short one 1st.
This is taken from a response by Senator Fred Thomson
"When someone ask what Saddam has done to us, I ask what had the 9-11 hijackers done to us..... before 9-11"

And now for the long answer.
1st lets deal with your statement about not knowing "for sure" about weapons.
Well the only reason we didn't know for sure was Saddam continually kicked out the weapon inspectors. He then lost his last and final opportunity to comply when he ignored resolution 1441 in 2002. (Resolution 1441 demanded that, within 30 days, Iraq provide , "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems )
For 10 years we where satisfied to contain Saddam, simple containment was no longer an option after 9-11.
1997, the New York Times reported, the U.N. inspection team could "no longer verify that Iraq is not making weapons of mass destruction" and specifically could not monitor "equipment that could grow seed stocks of biological agents in a matter of hours."

President Clinton declared in early 1998 that Saddam was clearly attempting "to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them." The U.N. inspectors believed, Clinton continued, that "Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions . . . and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." Meanwhile, a February 13, 1998, U.S. government White Paper on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stated that "in the absence of UNSCOM inspectors, Iraq could restart limited mustard agent production within a few weeks, full-production of sarin within a few months, and pre-Gulf War production levels--including VX--within two years."

This is excerpt from an interesting report I found, put together by a team of U.S. intelligence analysts several month before Iraq was even invaded.
"It would be extremely difficult to find weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of an invasion. We predicted that locating a program that . . . has been driven by denial and deception imperatives is no small task. Efforts to find the arms after the war would be like trying to find multiple needles in a haystack . . . against the background of not knowing how many needles may have been hidden."

If you look at Saddam's history, I think it easy to see he was only waiting for the rest of the world to look away, then he could and probably would start rebuilding his military.

Then we have the final reason, oil.
Not for the reason all the idiots have been talking about , "we went to Iraq to steal their oil." Iraq's oil supply is a large part of it simply because it allowed Saddam near limitless amounts of money to do damage with.
Depending on who's estimate you use, Iraq has either the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserve in the world, which could easy supply Saddam with tens of billions of dollars per year to do with what he wants. Do you really think it's in yours, mine or the worlds overall best interest to have an aggressive risk-taking dictator who has attacked four countries, used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies with near limitless funds in charge of a country? Maybe it's just me but I don't think so.

For the people who supported Kerry and his statements about how Bush should of sought World approval or how the U.S needed bring other counties into a REAL coalition before going to war with Iraq I'll leave you this to think about.

Many people mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the administration cares more about the credibility of the Security Council than do other council members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an American president from his responsibility to protect the security of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he requires.


And for those of you who question what military action has given us in the past I'll leave you with this, also stolen from Fred Thompson.

"It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to demonstrate.
It's the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press.
It's the soldier not the poet, who gives freedom of speech.
It's the soldier who serves under the flag that defends the right of protesters to burn the flag.

Were it not for the brave, there would be no land of the free."

Why do u like the people who died for freedom over those that were freed.....do u think the people that were freed asked to live in that life style..NO..they should be ur heroes also u have no idea how these people live from day to day and what their next meal will come from..they live like caged animals to put it simple but its the human spirit that keeps them living for one day to enjoy freedom

For you Real, I said Congrats on the Bush win. Even tho I dont like his way of doing things, as an American citizen I would stand behind him.
No Choice right?


Druid, Thanks for the details. It opens my eyes a little more. I would have or might have voted for Bush if he delivered Osama. You hit my point. It would have been a landslide with no doubt. I feel that he has let the families down that lost loved ones in 9-11 terrorist attack. It let me down when he couldn't deliver him. I also feel with the ties that the Bush family has with the Laden family, Does Bush want to disrupt that relationship? Thats a lot of their money tied into it. Thats where Im coming from.

To me , the soldiers that died in the WW's, died for our freedoms. The soldiers that are dieing now are for Bush's revenge. Thats the way I feel.

Diesel, you are right that these people lived like caged animals. Thats what they want because thats the only thing they know. Some want us over there, but the majority doesn't.

Bush and his connections to the ladin family was a long running story in the news.
Here are some details the media conveniently forgot to leave out.
1st of the differences between the meaning of family in the west and in the middle east are HUGE, huge as in the size of the family. The bin Ladin family totals close to 600 ( remember we are talking about broad families where men have multiple wifes and father numerous children by each wife. )
Osama had over a dozen family members in the states on 9-11. These are the same people who the media portrayed as being secretly flown out of the country on Bush's behalf before talking to investagators. ( BTW Bush wasn't contacted about it at all, the Saudi Embassy got permission from the FBI )
Something else not reported was the fact each one of them had to denounce Osama before being allowed to travel outside of Saudi Arabia, this all happened shortly after the 1st trade center attack. Then you have those like one of his sons who refused to sign a paper denouncing Osama and is now basically a prisoner inside of Saudi Arabia.
Vincent Cannistraro, the former C.I.A. antiterror chief," I believes that many family members have disowned him and cut off all contact with Osama, and revile his tactics. They are business people, that's what we are about."

There was another news story often mentioned in other news regarding Osama about how other members of his family had ties to terrorist activities. I can't remember the persons name by the important fact always overlooked by the media was this so called family member involved in terrorism was actually a brother-in-law and not even a brother-in-law connected with Osama's immediate family but one of the other 600 bin Ladin's. Also worth mentioning is the fact, in Saudi Arabia, a brother-in-law in not even considered part of the family.
That pretty much sums up the bin Ladins families close ties to terrorism.

BTW while we are on the subject of Osama, does everyone remember the early news reports after 9-11 where they talked about how he was such a danger because of his wealth. Well here is what WASN"T reported. Most of his real personal assets came from a $30 million inheritance which the Saudi Royal Family froze when they exiled him in 1994 or 1995.
Not to say Osama doesn't have the funds to finance terrorism, which brings me back to an important part of the 9-11 commission report. The trade center attack wasn't a one time attack, the main reason for the 9-11 attack was so Al-Qaeda could gain more recognition among arabs in the hopes of increasing their support and financing for larger attacks.

alot of them go along with the nut jobs cuz they fear for their family and their own lives..and alot of the nutz are raised from day 1 in their life to act the way they do

real you think you can work some of your magic and find the speech bush made when he was elected for anouther four years.. Some shit came up and i missed it. ty if you can.

sadly i was around for jhon kerry speech, damn flip flopper lol