Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes and my Republican and Democrat classmates were not pleased about it at all... I felt like I was talking to an angry wall... I will say that I was the ONLY one who was against it and said something about it... if there was someone else against it, they didn't say a word probably because of all the anger that Republicans and Democrats displayed... and to be honest, most of my young classmates were Democratic (it goes along with their maturity level)..
Yeah I agree, But my Classmates were born Republican. After they graduated College they'd come back to me as full blown Democrats.
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
History will show Bush failed in Iraq but history hopefully will be neutral in that assessment.
I'm seeing something today that I've never seen in 8 years of a Republican White House, members of the Presidents own party publicly expressing doubt about military action.
We are talking about air strikes launched by Navy warships or Air Force bombers, both safely out of range of Syrian countermeasures. But when it was time to invade and occupy a foreign land, with only the flimsiest of reasons to do so, with little or no plan on what to do once "regime change" was complete, I don't seem to recall any Republicans who spoke out against it prior to the invasion (with the exception of the courageous Lincoln Chaffee, former Rhode Island Senator, the lone "nay" vote)
It really does show a stark contrast between parties. Republicans are too scared to go against how their leadership tells them to vote, or were there others who voted against invading Iraq?
There is no stark contrast between the parties.
Both parties have people for and against the police action.
The Democrats had Bill Clinton, Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, Reid, Albrecht, etc...the Dems could have blocked it in the Senate -- all saying Iraq had WMD and supporting the Iraq War and voting for it......then the war goes south and those same people pretend they had nothing to do with it. And Democrats buy this BS.
Obama has been very disingenuous on the legality of his proposed police action and I see Dems justifying each flip flop of whether he needs congress or not.
We had lots of international support when going into Iraq. I'm not very familiar of Grenada under Reagan, but air strikes are cowardly. As for air strikes, how does randombly bombing a country, using the justification that they cant respond, ok?
Who gives a crap about who we kill, right?
So what you're saying is Obama is so weak of a President, that he cant convince other nations and allies to support him taking action, even though NATO is convinced that Syria was behind attacks?
No. You said that, not me. I think most nations were waiting to make absolutely sure that the intelligence showed that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, and we probably had that information before other countries based on our own intelligence in the region. Regardless of who the president is at this time, we pulled our allies into a war based on completely fabricated evidence when we gathered support to invade Iraq during the second Iraq war, and it ticked off the world. You can't blame other countries for wanting more confirmation this time since we lied to them before, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. Now that NATO has come to the same conclusions that this administration has, I think you're going to see countries coming on board quickly.
No. You said that, not me. I think most nations were waiting to make absolutely sure that the intelligence showed that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, and we probably had that information before other countries based on our own intelligence in the region. Regardless of who the president is at this time, we pulled our allies into a war based on completely fabricated evidence when we gathered support to invade Iraq during the second Iraq war, and it ticked off the world. You can't blame other countries for wanting more confirmation this time since we lied to them before, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. Now that NATO has come to the same conclusions that this administration has, I think you're going to see countries coming on board quickly.
So now that you said NATO has come to the conclusion, then its your notion that the world will come rushing in to support attackign Syria?
When exactly do you expect this rush of support to begin?
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
History will show Bush failed in Iraq but history hopefully will be neutral in that assessment.
Here are the quotes from the article that you deliberately left out.
"In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
"Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."
So now that you said NATO has come to the conclusion, then its your notion that the world will come rushing in to support attackign Syria?
When exactly do you expect this rush of support to begin?
Now that the intelligence seems to be conclusive that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, I think it will be a matter of weeks or less. The hesitation is because we've lied to the world before, so they don't trust us not to lie to them again, regardless of who the current president is. I don't blame them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
