You are not connected. Please login or register

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

rosco 357


Veteran
its to wide spread to nuke, u would have to nuke to many counties, and most of the counties are with us, and want them out of there county, as Afghanistan, i believe it will be hard to defeat them , because as ssc stated they move like ants, i see it going on for many years. like i said new ones born every minute.but im reapeating myself, lol

gypsy


Moderator
I don't like to say this, but I don't see us defeating them, Ithink it would be smart to try to actually leave, or slowly phase out. so many of ours dying with no apparant win scenerio,it is a horrible waste.

gypsy


Moderator
What about the oil in Iraq? wasn't there suppose to be a new pipe line built? who is getting the oil, does it still go to Saudi Arabia?

rosco 357


Veteran
gypsy wrote:I don't like to say this, but I don't see us defeating them, Ithink it would be smart to try to actually leave, or slowly phase out. so many of ours dying with no apparant win scenerio,it is a horrible waste.

no way can we do that, we cant let them build up,, there then would be more deaths here than is happening in the military, they were gaining strenght again in afganistan,but i think we have a campaign now going on to push them back,but some just blend into the population, none of this is going away and will never be easy,

gypsy


Moderator
I agree with that Rosco,but it does seem a no win situation.

SSC


Admin
gypsy wrote:What about the oil in Iraq? wasn't there suppose to be a new pipe line built? who is getting the oil, does it still go to Saudi Arabia?

It was not a war for oil as some miquided people would like to claim. My thing about oil is we have plenty right here, WHY buy oil from overseas ??

runawayhorses


Owner
I don't think the war was about oil either, but people like to use that as an excuse to detach and denounce the war as a "Mistake".

I think it was about national security, an effort to keep our nation safe, I applaud anyone trying to do that, I think Bush was such a Man.

Yes we have plenty of oil right here in the US, but the problem is oil company's find it too expensive to drill here. They'd rather import and distill the oil at their distilleries. Thats just my opinion not based in facts. Its all business I think, and is breaking this country.

I think the answer is in alternative power, lets get away from the oil business and put those executive oil a-holes out of business, Let them get into "gardening crops" or something else, or let them fall flat on their asses, makes no difference to me. We need to make oil something no one needs anymore.

They have a grip on this nation and are milking it dry. We can't afford oil anymore, we technically don't need it, we already know other ways to get power more efficiently and cleanly and environmentally safe.

The only reason we still need oil is becuase they (oil executives, the real people in charge of this country) don't want to be put out of business, no. they would rather destroy this country's economy and keep themselves rich. Of course, oil is only part of the problem. They make (oil executives) major national decisions with influences in higher offices of government, that are mostly about keeping themselves rich.

gypsy


Moderator
I agree Tyler good post,especially on the oil ,we need alternative,as smart/advanced as this era is we can do this~
I do think the war was a mistake though.

SSC


Admin
Of course you think the war was wrong. In that statement you approve the terrorist actions, you disapprove of hunting down and eliminating the scum who attacked our country and have taken many lives elsewhere. The ones who are sitting back plotting the next attack right now.
When Bush ordered the attacks on suspected terrorist hideouts he was acting in the best interest of all our country. My lord Gypsy our country had been attacked, what other recourse did he have ? This attack could not go unanswered.

gypsy


Moderator
no I don't disapprove of hunting down the terrorist,you assuming something again,nothing in my words written, state I disapprove hunting terrorist..
I thought we were going to leave each other be, that was your words.
I think the war was wrong in Iraq, Wrong place ,wrong reasons.. then he should have attacked iran or Afghanistan. ben ladin

SSC


Admin
So sorry Gypsy..please believe I won't post to any more of your blind bullshit....So carry on with your dribble, I really give a shit less . It is your ignorance on the line here not mine..Have a spiffy day flower

gypsy


Moderator
thank you.. BS? I think not, anymore than urs is.its opinions just because you think one way I another doesn't mean your right~or that I am,I never say your wrong.plus your actions speak loud. just because I don't agree, if you shit less (lol)why bother.. ThAnk you sunny

rosco 357


Veteran
gypsy wrote:no I don't disapprove of hunting down the terrorist,you assuming something again,nothing in my words written, state I disapprove hunting terrorist..
I thought we were going to leave each other be, that was your words.
I think the war was wrong in Iraq, Wrong place ,wrong reasons.. then he should have attacked iran or Afghanistan. ben ladin

please please, when talking about the war on terrorist leave iraq out of that,, the war on terrorist is mainly in afganistan, and it being ratcheted up.and Pakistan did go into there north to try to fight a few weeks ago. but terrorist are in many counties, that is why we need a strong intelligence. most countries i say in europe, have there intel going 24/7 doing the same thing we are, trying to stop the next disaster,, i do think saudi arabia has intel going, since some attacks from terrorist has been in saudi arabia, the terrorist do not like the royal family in saudi,

gypsy


Moderator
leave Iraq out? why? we are still fighting a war there.

rosco 357


Veteran
i said when talking about the war on terrorism, iraq is not part of the war on terrorism, we did not go there to find terrorist, anyway, the subject of iraq is about overdone, the exit stratagy is in place and has begun,as per obama ,who i think mainly followed close if not the same one that was in place before,

gypsy


Moderator
so why did we go to Iraq WMD? was the reason?

runawayhorses


Owner
gypsy wrote:so why did we go to Iraq WMD? was the reason?
Yes, it was very possible they had WMD, very possible, and would use them against this nation at their will, we had to make sure it couldn't happen, we have to take everything into consideration when dealing with that government. If that means going in and taking them out militarily, then so be it. It needed to be done, we can't take a chance of them getting power that they would use to destroy us. Bush did what he had to do, to keep us safe. We can't allow that kind of irresponsibility to take place, that kind of evil dictatorship to rule a nation, it could be the end of us all here in the US. Whatever measures it takes to keep us safe, is the prime and most important thing a president can do.

gypsy


Moderator
I understand that and agree,on doing everything we can to stay safe. they didn't have WMD's
I am trying to see the sense in what Bush did.
I guess the reasons kept changing like three or more times,well as I said, I pray we can stop the terrorists~

runawayhorses


Owner
gypsy wrote:I understand that and agree,on doing everything we can to stay safe. they didn't have WMD's
I am trying to see the sense in what Bush did.
I guess the reasons kept changing like three or more times,well as I said, I pray we can stop the terrorists~
But they didn't know that then! They didn't know for sure if they had WMD or not, they suspected they did, and couldn't take a chance of it being true, but if they knew they didn't have that. a war probably wouldn't have ever happened.

The president has to take every avenue of protection to keep out nation safe, not let one thing get by, or slide, they have to stay on top of everything and every possibility of an attack. Be glad he did what he did, he helped secure your life to continue on as usual.

That's how I feel about it.

gypsy


Moderator
I accept/respect your thought/opinion, I don't have the same opinion~but it has been hashed over and over~ and the mistakes from all this keep cropping up.
I don't feel safe,because we are still at war our young people dying everyday~I have grandsons who will probably join, the marines/navy scares the hell out of me.

SSC


Admin
You are right on the money Tyler. Had we taken the chance Iraq had WMD and not done anything our country as we know it today would be gone. Bush had no choice. The WTC attack , the USS Cole attack, all these were leading up to a mass attack within the US. Those who clain Bush made it a war for oil are so far from being correct. It is a war of security.

47 Another view on Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:34 pm

gypsy


Moderator
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/88970


BUSH DID NOT MAKE AMERICA SAFER
Gary Ater
January 26, 2009
TSA Airport Security

Itīs a figment of imagination to give George W. Bush this bogus credit for keeping America safe.

I am getting so tired of hearing the on-going fables about how the "Bush administration has kept America safe over the past seven years". In reality, after 9/11, and prior to going overboard and breaking the law with his torture and wire-tapping, Bush & Co. did what most administrations would have done for dealing with a terrorist attack on the US mainland.

However, once again in a recent published piece by a Mr. Marc Thiessen, he continues to trumpet that without the past actions of Bush & Co., we would have been hit again in the US. He makes this statement, even though he offered absolutely no proof for that assertion. And he states, that until Bush authorized the torture of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we would not have stopped a number of planned attacks.

Of course, he doesnīt happen to mention that none of these "stopped attacks" were planned for occurring within the US.

And Iīm sure the fact that Mr. Thiessen just happened to serve in senior positions at the White House and the Pentagon from 2001 to 2009, most recently as a chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, would have nothing to do with Mr. Thiessenīs stated conclusions.

In reality, no one knows whether other methods of interrogation would have given any better (or worse) information than the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were allowed to be used on Khalid. Many experts disagree on this point and most military personnel agree that by using these methods, it ultimately just soils Americaīs reputation for fairness and justice. It is also against past American international agreements and it gives a go-ahead for other countries to torture captured American troops.

I have no doubt that al Qaeda is planning on another attack on the US sometime in the future. I also think that when the US invaded Iraq, al Qaeda just said; "Why should we spend the time, money and effort to go after Americans in the US? We can simply recruit Muslim extremists from our local, middle-eastern Muslim countries and proceed to kill the infidels that have invaded our sacred lands." The extremists also then decided to use the US militaryīs Guantanamo Prison and the Abu Ghraib tortures and humiliations as the ideal extremist recruitment tools.

And we must remember, there were no al Qaeda cells in Iraq until after the US invasion. In fact, since the invasion of Iraq, al Qaeda has been able to recruit even more new blood and has been able to grow substantially as a world-wide terrorist organization. Most terror experts expect that with their international organization, al Qaeda will most likely strike in other countries multiple times before they attempt to hit the US Mainland again. The data to support this intelligence has been confirmed by multiple government and intelligence organizations from around the globe.

The other issue that shows that America is not safe because of the actions of George W. Bush concerns the on-going situation of US ports and borders. With borders that operate like giant two-way sieves, ports that still donīt examine more than 10% of incoming shipments, how can it be said that the US has been kept safe from a terrorist attack for the past seven years?



And the few questionable planned attacks that were supposedly "quashed" by US intelligence, have been debunked by most experts saying that they never could have been pulled off anyway. None of these so called "almost events" were being sponsored directly by real al Qaeda cells or other serious extremist groups. They were all US internal Muslim "wanna-beīs" and some were just misinformed Muslim dreamers with delusions of grandeur.

With Bush now gone, more information is coming to the surface about the misuse of his illegal wiretaps for "keeping America safe". So far, none of the gained information has shown any good data to divulge a real terrorist attack plan or "work-in-process". But their illegal actions did allow the wiretapping of media reporters and probably some politicians from the opposing political party.

I agree that the situation in Iraq today is better than it was before. But itīs not due to the Bush administrationīs great strategy to keep America safe. In fact, itīs currently better in spite of their original "strategy". The reason itīs better today is because we now have a US Military General that "gets it", and that Iraqi locals have been brought into the total equation. But the issue still remains that invading Iraq has made the problem worse and we still shouldnīt have invaded in the first place.

Are we going to get hit again? Probably yes.

But it is just an illusion that Bush & Co. have kept it from happening over the past seven years.

Letīs face it, Bush hasnīt been very lucky over his two terms in office, but he has been in this one instance of no further attacks.

I do believe if the US is attacked again on Obamaīs watch, it wonīt be because he or his team are not doing their jobs. Any more than it would have been Bushīs fault, if we had been hit again on his watch.

The reality is that there are so many "holes" in our ports, borders and systems, if they do develop the resources, and they decide to again attack the US, the Muslim extremist will find ways to drive their attack through those "holes".

As a good example, take the Jewish State of Israel, which is probably the most security consciences country in the world. And yet the Palestinians always find ways to attack and kill Israelis, regardless of Israelīs efforts. If they decide that they want to do it again, they will probably find a way. Remember, Muslim suicide bombers can come from anywhere and they are worshipped by their extremist leaders and followers.

Hopefully we will be able to minimize the effects of any future terrorist attack. But everyone must be aware, there are no guarantees that they wonīt successfully try again.

SSC


Admin
Rosco hope you see this post tomorrow interesting little blog site, especially the little part about Israel thrown in there ..sound familiar...lol

gypsy


Moderator
good part about Israel a strong defense,I see your doing it again, your word doesn't count for much~
I love Israel it is my husbands heritage~ also i am sure Rosco can read, this is the same tricks you have always pulled
the article was on the money,your not going to get a rile from me,remember, I don't get angry, and as you said leave me be~ your words~ so abide by it~ and your not going to get a fight from me,I will just post,now is your bully mode back,and your name calling?
you would pick at my posts, even if they were 100% but they aren't and neither are yours.. so carry on dearie~~ :rotfl:oh! ps familiar? like what?

gypsy


Moderator
Also I believe in Jesus SSC, and he is a Jew~I believe the Bible states chosen people..
if you can't give a legitimate debate don't call on some one to help you~ that is cowardly, now your personality is showing, an it ain't good~

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum