Is The World Safer Under Democrat Rule in The US? (Israel, Baghdad)
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.
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.
Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.
You people fought tooth-and-nail denying the very truths that sit and sat right in front of your faces and now you feel superior to have hindsight and place yourself above it all as if you actually mean something now. It's quite pathetic...
Quote:
"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
"Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,"
"These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
"They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction."
Anyway, not sure what's worse. Doing nothing or using 9/11 as an excuse to invade an innocent country for its oil, pass big brother spy laws that would make stalin jealous, and create a new bureaucracy Homeland Security. Bush and his pals cheered during 9/11 too. Now he had an excuse to invade Iraq and promote his imperial presidency.
How many of these "spy laws" have your liberal buddies rescinded? They have control of the house, senate and White House and have accomplished NOTHING but to spend money like it was free, which since they didn't earn any of it isn't surprising.
You liberals always forget that your politicians voted to invade Iraq too. Or do you just lie about it like you accuse Bush of lying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
Well, considering more Americans died in Iraq than on 9/11, history suggests that doing nothing is preferable to invading the wrong country.
More soldiers died under Clinton than Bush so history suggests that invading is safer for our troops.
They were innocent of actions against the US and human rights abuse is hardly limited to Iraq, start with places like China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and so on down the line. Are you suggesting they're all our responsibility to 'liberate'? Care to point out where the Constitution tasks the US government with that responsibility?
You're a lost cause. Someone who wants to place themselves above it all, after the fact, which is truly disgusting stance. The powers of war are given to the congress and the executive branch both of which agree to go to war.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,325 posts, read 54,330,205 times
Reputation: 40716
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Umm no, my point is that everting the government can do is not enumerated in the constitution. Duh.
Well Duh, it's a lot easier to make a case for the government attempting to keep some major US employers afloat being beneficial to the US than it is for pi$$ing $$$ away halfway around the globe with NO ROI.
Oh' we are going to go there? Ok, then explain to me why Bush didn't give a **** about North Korea, Sudan, Turkmenistan, but Iraq gets singled out for freedom at gunpoint? If Bush went after every dictatorship like he did to Iraq I might believe the, "we were tying to help the Iraqis," argument but Bush's actions show that this is all BS.
What a joke.. NY does not even practice the death penalty.
And by the way.. Are people forgetting that it was Bill Clinton and Al Gore who drafted the resolutions regarding regime change in Iraq? They also torched Bush Sr. for not invading Iraq. And if you visit some old press releases by Clinton, you can see his speech regarding the presence of WMDs in Iraq and Saddam's intentions to use 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.
