Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2009, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Kentucky/ Displaced Texan
3,105 posts, read 3,291,123 times
Reputation: 1024

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post

As for the surge, may I point to a FoxNews report regarding a speech by Gen. David Patraeus, the author of the Surge which Bush initially opposed, regarding a surge for Afghanistan:
"But Petraeus said a large military surge like the one in Iraq would not work in Afghanistan because there is not enough infrastructure on the ground to handle one, and because it is imperative that Afghans not view coalition forces as conquerors."
Thats nice but the guy who is CURRENTLY in charge or Afghanistan said:


Quote:
The additional military capabilities that have been asked for are needed as quickly as possible
Quote:
The top American military commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that he needs more troops and other aid "as quickly as possible" in a counterinsurgency battle that could get worse before it gets better.
Enoughalready people argue well were should not have gone into Iraq, they had nothing to do with WMD's. Okay, well last time I looked we aren't talking about Iraq. President Bush made a terrible mistake in going into Iraq that caused problems in A-stan. Okay fine we need to focus on Afghanistan, giving our guys the proper supplies and manpower to do the job would go a LONG way in increasing effectiveness. I don't understand how some can say well the Taliban protected and gave shelter to Bin Laden and Al Queda but we should just forget about it. Umm no, we should stay there until we can establish an effective government and make sure all these terrorists are DEAD. If the Dem's in power had some BALLS they would give the Military the number of troops it needs to do the job. Sorry but saying we don't want more troops in there because it costs to much not only hurts the region but puts American lives in jeopardy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2009, 09:44 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
1,878 posts, read 2,064,338 times
Reputation: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
First in a series of responses.

Putting words in Bush's mouth, hmmmm.

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com




Ah, if it wasn't your post, then you shouldn't have brought it up. Once up, it needs to be addressed.
Are you in anyway denying the fact that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq that were used by bin laden and his network?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2009, 09:12 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,154,953 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertGibbs View Post
Are you in anyway denying the fact that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq that were used by bin laden and his network?
Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
***
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
***
The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

This report was released two days after Dick Cheney announced that Al-Quaeda and Saddam had "long-established ties".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2009, 09:36 AM
 
272 posts, read 215,893 times
Reputation: 79
None of this matters because our attack on Iraq didnt happen in a vacuum. Iraq attacked our ally Kuwait. We removed saddam and his armies from Kuwait like any good ally would.

We do what we want after that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2009, 10:39 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagey cretin View Post
None of this matters because our attack on Iraq didnt happen in a vacuum. Iraq attacked our ally Kuwait. We removed saddam and his armies from Kuwait like any good ally would.

We do what we want after that.
Gee, has Kuwait repaid us yet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2009, 12:03 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,154,953 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagey cretin View Post
None of this matters because our attack on Iraq didnt happen in a vacuum. Iraq attacked our ally Kuwait. We removed saddam and his armies from Kuwait like any good ally would.

We do what we want after that.
We wanted to abandon the Kurds?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,887 posts, read 17,192,862 times
Reputation: 3706
So I guess nobody is willing to give a straight answer to a simple question. It would seem then that Democrasts will oppose any military action, no matter how justified?

Afghanistan and the Taliban were central to the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, of that there is no debate, at least not among sane and reasonable people. All I've gotten here as reponses are more of the same attacks on Bush, not a proper responses as to why Democrats like Levin and Durbin are against sending more troops to Afghanistan. There was a comment by someone about not being for "regime change" and some other ramblings.

So...if a country harbors those who assisted with the operational planning and execution of 9/11 and harbored Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we are not justified in military action? Is that the Democrats' position now? They can't hide behind excuses that it's not "central" or the "real war" as they did with Iraq, so yes....their true stripes of pacifism and weakness (for those who asked "what stripes?") are showing. So, I'll ask again, why are they backing off destroying the Taliban and securing Afghanistan?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 09:01 AM
 
272 posts, read 215,893 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Gee, has Kuwait repaid us yet?

Kuwait has repaid us many times over by supporting the free flow of oil out of the ME, its the reason they are our ally.

Once one drop of American blood was spilled fighting Iraqis we are having a party in their capitol. Saddam huessien is the Pinata.

None of which has anything to do with Afghanistan, the taliban and 9-11
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 09:04 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
First in a series of responses.

Putting words in Bush's mouth, hmmmm.

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com




Ah, if it wasn't your post, then you shouldn't have brought it up. Once up, it needs to be addressed.
Everyone knows that Bush MEANT Saudia Arabia in all the above statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Arizona High Desert
4,792 posts, read 5,901,674 times
Reputation: 3103
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
So I guess nobody is willing to give a straight answer to a simple question. It would seem then that Democrasts will oppose any military action, no matter how justified?

Afghanistan and the Taliban were central to the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, of that there is no debate, at least not among sane and reasonable people. All I've gotten here as reponses are more of the same attacks on Bush, not a proper responses as to why Democrats like Levin and Durbin are against sending more troops to Afghanistan. There was a comment by someone about not being for "regime change" and some other ramblings.

So...if a country harbors those who assisted with the operational planning and execution of 9/11 and harbored Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we are not justified in military action? Is that the Democrats' position now? They can't hide behind excuses that it's not "central" or the "real war" as they did with Iraq, so yes....their true stripes of pacifism and weakness (for those who asked "what stripes?") are showing. So, I'll ask again, why are they backing off destroying the Taliban and securing Afghanistan?
An exercise in futility. The US will not "win" in Afghanistan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top