"Jihad Bomb Kills 20 in Dodge City!"

[lurker]

No Wordy, I didn't alter your post. I interjected it... in color, too. Just so'z you'd know it was me.

WWWD? What's your fix?

[TexKan]

Lets get ready to RUMBLE!!!!!

I'm stoppin by to pick up some snacks so I can watch this all weekend!!! LOL

I am curious thos Wordie............ What would you do? and how would you avoid the chaos you create by what you do?????

All I hear is leave, leave, leave............ are we not responsible for them now that thier Dictator is gone? How does the left plan to maintain peace over there? Are they just runners or do they have a plan? I haven't heard one.

[Detector]

The left would need no exit plan because if it were up to them we wouldn't even be there in the first place. Why? No need. There is no terrorist threat except from the Bush administration. 911 never happened. It was orchestrated by the Bush administration to get even for Bush senior.

Besides, even if we have terrorists coming to America they have every right to be here. America was founded on immigrants.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Detector

The left would need no exit plan because if it were up to them we wouldn't even be there in the first place. Why? No need. There is no terrorist threat except from the Bush administration. 911 never happened. It was orchestrated by the Bush administration to get even for Bush senior.

Besides, even if we have terrorists coming to America they have every right to be here. America was founded on immigrants.

Indeed we wouldn't be in Iraq because there was no legitimate reason to go there nor was it a terrorist threat.

Then we'd have troops for Afghanistan. If bush had allowed that one to be done properly we'd have had Osama, the actual one responsible for 9-11, because we could have more effectively sealed the borders. Instead he let him get away.

Why? Because the troops and resources that could have been used for this purpose were being illegally diverted to the buildup for the war in Iraq while the Bushies were looking for excuses to convince you we should be there.

Now our troops and resources are stretched so thin we can't effectively fight the enemies we know about much less a war on an enemy we can't see.

Tony Snow went so far as to blame 9-11 on Bush the elder recently when he said that since the first Bush didn't go all the way to Baghdad he showed Osama that the Americans could be cowed by the prospect of a long struggle. These people will only stop short of accepting blame or admitting responsibility as they keep looking for others to blame.


Whoever becomes president in 08 is in for a hell of a cleanup job with this mess created by George and his cronies.

What would I do…

First I’d start listening to the people who know what they are talking about. If it came to pulling out of Iraq and letting them have the civil war they are already fighting I’d do that reluctantly but then those troops and resources could be used in Afghanistan and some could be brought home to actually begin the job of securing our borders from outside terrorists coming in that way.

With that pressure off then I’d give money back to homeland security and law enforcement to root out those that are already here. Far too much money is going to the insane war with no real prize for us in the end.

So far all the war in Iraq has done is give them a place to practice killing U.S. Soldiers and that’s about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Lurker,

Just because you put it in red or any other color doesn't mean squat. You altered my response under the "quote" line and not everyone on the board understands that you do that. Newer members or the casual observer may read your post and my so called quote without reading my original post and they could be led to believe that I put it in red for emphasis.

I don't mind you responding to me and quoting me but putting YOUR comments inside MY quote is dishonest. And then just making shit up is just as bad as the former board. "Let's give Wordy his way and cut & run."

Didn't say that and if you scroll back to post #3 you'll see differently.

I said here if we had to leave that it would be reluctantly but it's an option because the Iraqis aren't "stepping up so we can step down," as W liked to say.

They are saying... no we're not ready yet. I mean if you had a choice of putting your friends and family on the front lines to get shot at or someone else's which would you prefer?

If the "insurgents" have Americans there to hate and shoot at they don't have time to focus on their own government.

Maybe if we tell their so called government, "We are leaving in 6 months get your shit together or else deal with it," they might start standing up.

OK enough rant lunch time is over.

[Detector]

OK, enough kidding around. Lets put aside the idea that everything evil and wrong in this world is the result of the Bush's and their administration and get some serious answers.

I respect your opinion as honest and sincere wordsmythe. So I ask you honestly what do you think we should have done about 911?

Now I'll be the first to admit I'm an eye for an eye type of guy, but it seems to me most of America feels the same way as well. So I really can't see doing nothing as an option America would have accepted.

Also, I firmly believe that IF you must fight then taking the fight to your enemy is not only smart, but a proved winning strategy in battles of the past. Simply because it instantly puts your enemy on the defensive.

[wordsmythe]

I wasn't kidding around and am very serious.

So now you want to talk about 9-11 instead of Iraq...

In the weeks following 9-11 I sent out and email to my list saying something to the effect of:

Hey everyone I know I've been bagging on Bush a lot since he got into office but considering recent events I think it's important that we all back off a little and give him some room. Lets see what he can do.

We started to do what we should have done by taking out the Taliban but it was stopped short because of the buildup for Iraq.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11.

We should have hit Afghanistan with everything we had when we still had everything.

The world was on our side.

People were willing to enlist in DROVES.

The country was united.

Then we got sidetracked.

I have no problem with eye for an eye but if someone a few houses over gets tired of hearing your dog bark and gives him a bit of antifreeze do you punch your mailman in the face because he's easier to find and didn't like your dog either?

Taking the fight to the enemy is a great idea and should be done when you can but Iraq wasn't the particular enemy we needed to worry about at the time. That enemy was in a cave in Afghanistan making videos and plans to capitalize on our imperial ways.

Instead of alienating other countries like Iran, Syria and N. Korea by refusing to talk to them and calling them names we should have been reaching out to them with one hand and holding the pistol behind our backs just in case.

By trying to work with them we would have gained a LOT more support than going it alone.

Then we should have put a LOT more money and time into counter terrorism domestically.

It's hard to attack an ideal with guns.

[lurker]

Attention DB readers; if you read post 19 and thought the single word "just" in the first quoted line is Wordys, then please scroll all the way to post 18 for the actual sentence. lurker's SORRY for any confusion this might have caused.

Wordy,
Why are you fixated on Afghanistan? *"In two short months Operation Enduring Freedom transformed the strategic landscape of not only Afghanistan, but also Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. It did so in ways that were largely unforseen and unplanned at the outset of the war and that remain unsettled today. Indeed, seldom has the gap been so great between the clarity of battlefield victory and the uncertainty of what it has wrought. Even the net effect of the victory on the new terrorism is uncertain.

<snip>

The Taliban regime, which absorbed most of our attention, bore only a contingent relationship to Al Qaeda's activities outside the region. In fact, most of the Al Qaeda facilities and most of the foreign troops under their control in Afghanistan had to do with the civil war there. Most of the organization's capabilities to conduct far reaching terrorist acts resided and resides outside of Afghanistan, and thus fell beyond the scope of Operation Enduring Freedom."
* http://www.comw.org/pda/0201strangevic.html has additional honest information

I gotta cut this short cuz it looks like it's gunna rain & I gots things to do b4...

Anthrax is a forgotten instrument of terror and there was lots of connections between Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban. This CNN interview might refresh your memory. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/29/mylroie/

I'm SORRY that I connected you with the cut & run crowd. My Bad.

[Detector]

My bad as well. I was under the impression you felt we had no reason to go to Afghanistan.

If I remember right the reason we turned our attention to Iraq was because they posed the most immediate threat in the war on terror. Although there were other nations to look toward, Saddam and Iraq posed the most danger because of their willingness to use what they get their hands on.

Intelligence indicated Saddam was rebuilding his chemical weapons labs, had possession of forbidden long-range missiles capable of delivering the chemicals and that he was trying to purchase high-strength aluminum tubing used in processing weapons grade uranium. Advisor's told the president IF Saddam was able to buy a softball size amount of uranium he could have a bomb in less than a year.

The problem was unlike other leaders Saddam had proved he doesn't hesitate to use what he has.

North Korea and the likes are well known for making threats and not backing them up. N. Korea is crazy but not stupid. Saddam was crazy and stupid.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Detector

So I ask you honestly what do you think we should have done about 911?

Wordy is doing a mighty fine job but I must chime in with, why did so many people, yourself included apparently, think 9/11 had anything what so ever to do with Iraq?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Detector

If I remember right the reason we turned our attention to Iraq was because they posed the most immediate threat in the war on terror. Although there were other nations to look toward, Saddam and Iraq posed the most danger because of their willingness to use what they get their hands on.

No if you remember correctly we first went into Iraq becaue they supposedly had weapons of mass destructions and would not comply with the agreement made after the first gulf war. Then when it was shown they had apparently complied (finally), after the invasion, there came a series of reasons du jour.

Even if Iraq had WMD, they had no vehicle system capable of delivering said weapons to the USA whereas N. Korea has the weapons, and could very well have a delivery system. But that threat requires an international effort. Why, maybe because N. Korea shoots back and they don;t have a large oil reserve perhaps?