dudejcb wrote:“This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,”
How many times is he going to be allowd to get away with useing this same line?
I doubt we would have quit. there are still plenty of bad guys to deal with so that's an absurd notion to attempt to impose on me. son't put words inmy mouth.SpinnerMan wrote:What I want to know is how would world wide terrorism changed if we would have gotten Obama and quit?
I don't know that I prefer a war with Pakistan, but Pakistan is my largest concern. It's not very stable, helps al Queda by giving them free territory to work from, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Nightmare scenario! Staying in Afghanistan and completing the job would have ammeliorated this situation immensely. but now it has just gotten worse. good call by GW and the boys.SpinnerMan wrote:Do you really prefer a war with Pakistan or Iran? I know you are against acting on incomplete intelligence because that means some time it will be wrong. Of course, if we just did a hit an run in Iraq like Clinton, then we would have never know what was true and what wasn't..
The thinking may not alwasy work perfectly but persistence pays off. Your heros didn't have the persistence or strategic intellect to prosecute the effort in a step by step logical manner (kind of like the island hopping strategy we used in WWII with the Japanese), instead they went skitzo in Iraq and made everything worse.SpinnerMan wrote:Oh, I forgot. Your guys would have executed the first perfect war and he would have never allowed him to escaped from whatever that valley we think he was in. I know you all think your that bright, but I'll burst your bubble. Thinks don't work perfectly like they do in your dreams..
No, it became the fall back reason after WMD's were not found. don't you remember?SpinnerMan wrote:Al Qaeda in Iraq was not the #1, #2, or #3 reason. It was one of about a dozen reasons..
yeah, I know. Saddam offered money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and did other bad things. so this is a good reason to pull back in Afghanistan and let that situation devolve and allow the Taliban and al Queda regroup and gain strenght. GENIUS!SpinnerMan wrote:Iraq's ties to terrorism (not Al Qaeda) was the number one reason in my view. That was confirmed..
No, in fact it was confirmed that they didn't have WMD's and GW went with the shoddy info about "yellow cake" as a scare tactic to justify his foregone decision to attack Iraq. The English meeting memo confirmed this.SpinnerMan wrote:Iraq's ability to escalate the terrorists capabilities by providing them with WMDs was #2, but tightly coupled to #1. This was also confirmed..
first, you are incorrectly using the word for. it should say "Stockpiles of WMDs was brought to the forEfront. Now that the english lesson is over.SpinnerMan wrote:Stockpiles of WMDs was brought to the for front because I guess the simpletons couldn't understand all of the more complicated strategic reasons we were changing the way we confronted world wide Islamo-fascist terrorism. Bio and chemical weapons on not like nuclear weapons. If you maintain the know-how you can make them quickly. Stockpiles don't cost near as much or take near as long to produce as nukes. Saddam was maintaining the know-how and precluding open interviews outside of Iraq of all of his WMD scientist. Obviously, I can't read Saddam's mind, but I can't think of any good reason for these. Granted we appear to have been wrong on the stockpiles of WMDs, since we have only found a few odds and ends..
So, even though there lame attempts to shoot at us had NO effect, we should shoot ourselves in the foot and overstretch our military and put them at higher risk in so doing. Again I gotta say, GENIUS!SpinnerMan wrote:The fact that they continued to shoot at our air crafts in violation of the cease fire agreement is something we should never tolerate.
No kidding. If I were Saddam and I had attacked two of my neighbors, and had most of my own country hating my guts, I wouldn't have told the world...HEY WORLD, I got nothin'. I couldn't defend myself if I tried.SpinnerMan wrote:There were a bunch of reasons. Most were true, but it is true they did keep secret the fact that they got rid of their stockpiles of WMDs. Where, when, and why are not clear. That's the problem of a secretive repressive regeme. Nobody believes them..
No, I want to let Iraq do their own killing of each other, and get our guys out of the line of fire to the greatest extent possible.SpinnerMan wrote:However, Al Qaeda is there now and you want to quit. So I guess this was irrelevant anyways.
Still not quite getting my take are you.SpinnerMan wrote:Yeah, but he was just filibustering to try to obfuscate from the problem that we shouldn't have went to war because Al Qaeda wasn't there, but now that they are we should leave. It progressive logic.
Speaking of filibustering... the Senate R's have successfully fillibustered any legislation on climate change, yet again. this has the effect of letting us slide further and further into a bad situation without taking and remedial action, so that when the time comes where it can no longer be ignored it will just be harder and more expensive that it otherwise might have been. Now that's great leadership! BRAVO R's! you can go now, it's almost November.
dudejcb wrote:therre weren't any new taxes. the reason the R's gave was that the legislation might put upward pressure on energy costs.
At this point I think a north wind would cause the price of gas to spike. So while the reason given sounds like good fatherly advice, in light of how gas prices are rising at will regardless and with no action whatsoever, it seems more like a head in the sand response.
dudejcb wrote:I don't think the government auctions off the credit at all. the companies that earn the credits by reducing their carbon output, can then sell those emmissions credits to someone else who may not be able to reduce their emmissions so easily.
It's a market based approach, not a government tax or fine approach.
captainduckhead wrote:olddkguide wrote:I'll stick with my original statement, we need a warrior to lead this nation right now. None of the other stuff will amount to a hill of beans if we all have to bow to the east every morning. Gas will soon be $140 a barrel. Who flew the planes , Saudis that were extremist. Wake up folks we are at war. Gas is being used as an economic weapon against us and we are to stupid to see it. The Arabs are laughing to the bank. To the conquer goes the spoils. To pull out of the mid-east right now will be putting America's head on the chopping block. Sadom is gone, it is time for the Iraqes to pay us for there freedom, same thing goes for Kawait. Our nation removed a mass murderer. I'm tired of holding back and listening to liberal crap. If the peacenicks all want to go hands and pin what ever color ribbon they are wearing today fine let me suggest a place for you to go do it, Any where but the USA. Obama is the wrong choice for us for many reasons but mostly because he lacks what most of us understand,
we must have someone that will defend this nation against our enemies.
If the United States Of America were made up entirely of people with this opinion, we wouldn't be in the horrible position that we are in right now. It's nice to see that there are still people living here that have a set of nads.
Users browsing this forum: SpinnerMan and 4 guests