Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GRDadof3

Al-Zarqawi Dead

106 posts in this topic


I'm glad he's gone too. A lot of the scumbags, ehhh freedom fighters, are calling this guy a martyr. If this guy was a Nazi and died in the same way, he would have gotten the same sentiment from the Germans.

We need to stay the course. It would be great if there was a stable democracy in the middle east. Remember the Germans are still to this day dealing with small factions of neo-Nazis. They had terrorists back then in Germany much like Iraq has today, there's just differences such as the level that the US is restricting freedoms in the transition period.

My big gripe is they are forming a non-secular government. Rather than make an official religion, I think they should just include muslim principles in the constitution so that they are the law of the land much like our country was founded upon Judeo-christian principles. They should never have an official religion..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ well said Damus.

It is reprehensible that some on AirAmerica and elsewhere are scoffing at this almost as if it were a massive defeat for the U.S. I was shocked at that response, I can understand being against the war and doubting some of what Bush goes for, but to dismiss what the best of our young men and women are doing over there to bring a 4th brutal killer to an end as somehow not worthy of any praise since war kills civilians exposes to me that no matter what we do in the world AirAmerica is about as anti-American as it can get.

Strong words I know but how else can any logical person read that reaction? Say what you want about the war, about Rumsfeld, about Bush but to start talking of all the women and children we may have hurt during a war (did we firebomb Dresden or drop a bomb on Nagasaki, burn Atlanta? You would have thought war was supposed to be some humantarian effort listening to some in the Democratic party) so really nothing our brave men and women do is worth any praise.

If you want to bash American soliders at least stand up for them when they rid the world of someone who would love to take a carving knife to your neck for a few hours and then air it on AlJazzera. AirAmerica would start growing again if they could show a common guy that they are as concerned and as proud of our troops as they are opposed to Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well honestly the fine young americans in the army and marines who are stuck on the ground acting as policemen for an unstable government, and getting killed in the process, had nothing to do with Al-Zarquawi. They sent out two jets and dropped 2 500lb bombs on the compound which killed everybody there. This time they actually got it right but the cost has been the deaths of hundreds of civilians in missed attempts in the past. This is why we are generally hated there now.

The real question here, why did Zarquawi rise to such prominance in a place that we "liberated"? The answer to this question of course is that Bush, Cheney, Rhumsfield, and others had no post-war plan for Iraq and the place has decended into chaos and now our people are getting killed for it. What I want to see, instead of crowing they have killed one leader over there, is what is our plan for getting out. We still don't have that plan, we have no stated goals that would mean that we would leave, and no idea for when it will happen. This is the sorry sad and reprehensible use of our fine young military personale as they continue to die unnecessairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well honestly the fine young americans in the army and marines who are stuck on the ground acting as policemen for an unstable government, and getting killed in the process, had nothing to do with Al-Zarquawi. They sent out two jets and dropped 2 500lb bombs on the compound which killed everybody there. This time they actually got it right but the cost has been the deaths of hundreds of civilians in missed attempts in the past. This is why we are generally hated there now.

The real question here, why did Zarquawi rise to such prominance in a place that we "liberated"? The answer to this question of course is that Bush, Cheney, Rhumsfield, and others had no post-war plan for Iraq and the place has decended into chaos and now our people are getting killed for it. What I want to see, instead of crowing they have killed one leader over there, is what is our plan for getting out. We still don't have that plan, we have no stated goals that would mean that we would leave, and no idea for when it will happen. This is the sorry sad and reprehensible use of our fine young military personale as they continue to die unnecessairly.

Tell me, why exactly do we have a military? To defend our country from threats. Iraq was a clear threat, so we went over there to do a job that should have been done years ago. Why do people join the military? Some, to pay for school (stupid mistake,) but others join because they want to go to war and fight for their country, to uphold a tradition.

You're asking a lot by requesting a plan for getting out of Iraq. No one knows what tomorrow holds with the insurgents over there, so no one can accurately estimate when we will be able to get out of there. War never goes as planned. Your fine (laugh) liberal "leaders" could draft a plan right now for us to get out of Iraq safely, but I promise you it would never work. War is unpredictable, but if you think you could do a better job at getting our soldiers out of Iraq, I suggest you write the government.

Quoting my best friend, Chris, who is in Iraq right now, "It's not the best environment over here, but it is a change of pace from everyday life back in the states. Hey where else can you shoot [expletive removed] terrorists on a daily basis, and then actually get paid for it?" From this quote, and everything else he's told me, I would draw the conculsion that he's having a good time over there. It's the weenies who joined the military solely to pay for their education who are whining to get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me, why exactly do we have a military? To defend our country from threats. Iraq was a clear threat,

Agreed on the reason for military. However, Iraq was not a clear threat. It was no threat at all. Saddam had complied with all UN requirements placed on him by treaty which was signed by the USA. $6 Billion in tax payer money digging up sand has proven that. In addition we had him bottled up with Southern and Northern no fly zones. Bush ignored all of this and hit Iraq with an unprovoked attack and should be impeached for lying about the threat.

Using your measuring stick, we should be attacking Saudia Arabia. This is where all the extremists came from that attacked during 9-11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sadaam routinely denied inspectors access to facilities. He tried to circumvent the UN treaties whenever possible. The UN is not exactly credible, anyways. Oil for food, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on the reason for military. However, Iraq was not a clear threat. It was no threat at all. Saddam had complied with all UN requirements placed on him by treaty which was signed by the USA. $6 Billion in tax payer money digging up sand has proven that. In addition we had him bottled up with Southern and Northern no fly zones. Bush ignored all of this and hit Iraq with an unprovoked attack and should be impeached for lying about the threat.

On numerous occasions throughout the Clinton administration, our spy planes took video of the Iraqi military physically hiding their big weapons from us. We knew they were there, and once we were onto him, the inspectors were denied access. Why would he deny the inspectors if he had nothing to hide? There was a clear threat there, and he got rid of it knowing that the 'stuff' was about to hit the fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On numerous occasions throughout the Clinton administration, our spy planes took video of the Iraqi military physically hiding their big weapons from us. We knew they were there, and once we were onto him, the inspectors were denied access. Why would he deny the inspectors if he had nothing to hide? There was a clear threat there, and he got rid of it knowing that the 'stuff' was about to hit the fan.

What big weapons? Have you got some proof? I might be missing something, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton oversaw offensive engagements against Iraq, we had flyovers and enforced no-fly zones there throughout his entire presidency if my memory serves. I don't recall the "big weapons" but I do recall the real confusion as to what some of what we found over there was used for, good thing Saddam was so diligent and thrifty in clearing up those questions for us . . . I think we are still waiting on those answers.

I have just heard today that 2 Democrats on the hill have called the capture and killing of Zarqawi a "stunt" by the Bush administration. Wow, I need to start calling those history book publishers and yell at them for "brainwashing me" into believe that Normandy and Sherman's march to the sea were not simply STUNTS to boost the poll numbers for FDR and Lincoln respectively.

If we are going to fight a war against a global force that is killing one race on a bus and leaving the others, or pushing Israel and the Timoran Christians to the sea, and planning to behead the prime minister of a nation that has spoken out against the invasion of Iraq, etc. etc. etc. with rhetoric like this from Congress, either all my history books were lying and FDR and Lincoln were the Hitlers and Douglas' or someone should be so kind as to re-enroll those legislators in History 101.

I will say I am glad to see that the party leadership and senior members have dismissed those comments and that most Democrats see this as a net positive for freedom and world peace. I just wish they would be louder about it and confront AirAmerica and those two legislators on why and what gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton oversaw offensive engagements against Iraq, we had flyovers and enforced no-fly zones there throughout his entire presidency if my memory serves.

Yes, Clinton was complying with treaty obligations with the UN Security Council and of course requirements set forth by end of Gulf War I, which if you remember was started by Bush Sr. (like father like son)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What big weapons? Have you got some proof? I might be missing something, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

While i dont have proof, i do remember a few occasions in the late 90s of Clinton sending planes over to Baghdad to bomb places. Im not sure what it was all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i dont have proof, i do remember a few occasions in the late 90s of Clinton sending planes over to Baghdad to bomb places. Im not sure what it was all about.

He bombed Iraqi government facilities in response to Saddam shooting at American planes enforcing the no-fly zones. And the right wing accused him of doing it to distract public attention from the Monica witch hunt. Iraq apparently wasn't such a threat back then I suppose. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Quoting my best friend, Chris, who is in Iraq right now, "It's not the best environment over here, but it is a change of pace from everyday life back in the states. Hey where else can you shoot [expletive removed] terrorists on a daily basis, and then actually get paid for it?" From this quote, and everything else he's told me, I would draw the conculsion that he's having a good time over there. It's the weenies who joined the military solely to pay for their education who are whining to get back.

That's a far cry from "war is hell." That is the sort of attitude that leads to the killing of innocent civilians, as in the numerous emerging cases of massacres by US troops. Anything that moves is a target, just like in hte video games. What fun! "Support the troops" or not, anyone who is actually glad to be in a war and enjoys killing people deserves no respect from anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He bombed Iraqi government facilities in response to Saddam shooting at American planes enforcing the no-fly zones. And the right wing accused him of doing it to distract public attention from the Monica witch hunt. Iraq apparently wasn't such a threat back then I suppose. :rolleyes:

Iraq was a threat back then. It was until the days leading up to the war when Sadaam said "oh crap better get rid of this stuff" and either destroyed it, hid it in Iraq, or shipped it to Syria (most likely). Didn't the Americans find some sort of mustard gas or something there?

I don't know how much of a "witch hunt" everything was. Clinton was the most scandelous President in recent history (I've heard that Grant was pretty bad), and I'm sure his being President allowed for him to get away with a lot. He was tied to a ton of scandals and the Democrats would've done the same if there was the same evidence on Bush. They've actually been much more partisan than the Republicans of the 1990s... Just look at the sheer number of fillibusters used.

BTW: I know most people like to say he was impeached for a blowjob, that's a half truth. He lied about it under oath. As a lawyer he should really have known better... It's one thing to lie about it until it's brought up in court, and it really isn't anyone's business, unless it got in the way of important decisions... oh wait it did, weren't some world leaders on hold while he was with Monica in the Oval Office? Perjury is not a joke, and as President and a member of the bar, I think he should have had more respect for the system than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to our buddy Mr. Hitler in a headscarf (Savage term). Isn't it weird that he's the only person in the world that it seems that EVERYONE is happy that he's dead? We're all happy that he's gone since he was a brutal murderer and organizer of other murderous acts of terrorism, and the terrorists are happy because he's a martyr. Very weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how much of a "witch hunt" everything was. Clinton was the most scandelous President in recent history (I've heard that Grant was pretty bad), and I'm sure his being President allowed for him to get away with a lot. He was tied to a ton of scandals and the Democrats would've done the same if there was the same evidence on Bush. They've actually been much more partisan than the Republicans of the 1990s... Just look at the sheer number of fillibusters used.

BTW: I know most people like to say he was impeached for a blowjob, that's a half truth. He lied about it under oath. As a lawyer he should really have known better... It's one thing to lie about it until it's brought up in court, and it really isn't anyone's business, unless it got in the way of important decisions... oh wait it did, weren't some world leaders on hold while he was with Monica in the Oval Office? Perjury is not a joke, and as President and a member of the bar, I think he should have had more respect for the system than that.

Clinton was not anywhere near as scandal-ridden as Bush. Considering virtually every issue Bush is tied to has been completely bungled by his cowtowing to special interests, the suggestion is laughable. Clinton wasn't perfect, but the performance of his duties as president were so effective that the Republicans had to pry into his personal life to find grounds to attack him. Why else were his sexual liasons the subject of a multi-billion dollar investigation in the first place?

Almost as laughable is the idea that the Democrats are being more partisan than the Republicans. The Democrats have tried to launch investigation after investigation into the Bush administration, but as the minority party, they don't get anywhere. It isn't for lack of evidence that we don't see inquiries... just watch the news and you'll see the evidence... It's that the partisans in the Republican party block every attempt to get to the truth of the matter. The Democrsts filibuster because it is one of the few tools the minority party has to influence the outcome of debate. The Republicans filibustered just as often before retaking Congress in the mid nineties.

Perjury isn't a joke, but neither is treason, and there is plenty of reason to believe Bush has repeatedly violated his oath of office.

As for the threat posed by Iraq, the talking points you're using are about two years past their expiration date. Bush himself admitted ages ago that Iraq probably never had illegal WMDs, and was never an imminent threat to the US. The one shell of gas that was found was a remnant of the supply our government gave Saddam in the early eighties, and its shelf life was up nearly twenty years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton was not anywhere near as scandal-ridden as Bush. Considering virtually every issue Bush is tied to has been completely bungled by his cowtowing to special interests, the suggestion is laughable. Clinton wasn't perfect, but the performance of his duties as president were so effective that the Republicans had to pry into his personal life to find grounds to attack him. Why else were his sexual liasons the subject of a multi-billion dollar investigation in the first place?

Almost as laughable is the idea that the Democrats are being more partisan than the Republicans. The Democrats have tried to launch investigation after investigation into the Bush administration, but as the minority party, they don't get anywhere. It isn't for lack of evidence that we don't see inquiries... just watch the news and you'll see the evidence... It's that the partisans in the Republican party block every attempt to get to the truth of the matter. The Democrsts filibuster because it is one of the few tools the minority party has to influence the outcome of debate. The Republicans filibustered just as often before retaking Congress in the mid nineties.

Perjury isn't a joke, but neither is treason, and there is plenty of reason to believe Bush has repeatedly violated his oath of office.

As for the threat posed by Iraq, the talking points you're using are about two years past their expiration date. Bush himself admitted ages ago that Iraq probably never had illegal WMDs, and was never an imminent threat to the US. The one shell of gas that was found was a remnant of the supply our government gave Saddam in the early eighties, and its shelf life was up nearly twenty years ago.

:rolleyes:

High crimes and misdemeanors... I did not say he committed treason. Are you saying that if he murdered a homeless man that he should not be impeached? That is the same logic. I can't believe you are defending a man who is President and a lawyer getting caught committing perjury. If I had done it I would have been given jail time. When it happened to Bill the media spun it as a political witch hunt and his approval rating went up. It's unbelievable.

It's not talking points, it's fact. Bill Clinton had the same intelligence that George Bush had. It's not partisan.

Show me the statistics. The Democrats acted like little children when they lost their majority. They actively campaigned for a flipper when it was 50-50 and got Jeffords to do so (which I think should be illegal, he was elected as a republican and if anything should have resigned if he didn't wanna be a Republican anymore). They have blocked an unbelievable number of Bush's court appointees, most notably Judge Pickering, who was the #1 rated judge by the American Bar Association.

Do I need to get into the scandals? There is reason to believe clinton knowingly sold nuclear secrets to red china. There's whitewater, travelgate, Janet Reno's crusade against the 2nd amendment, the selling of the lincoln bedroom, pardongate. I'm sure there were a lot more I didn't think of just now. As flawed as Bush is, he's no Clinton. BTW, it is kinda odd when you think of when Clinton ordered airstrikes (3 times if my memory is correct) soon after major news regarding the Monicadate scandal came out. He was not a good President that's for sure. Didn't he choose where to go on vacation based upon polling data?

Sure, there were sexual liasons on the Clinton side... Was Gennifer Flowers the one who said Clinton raped her? The only news on Bush like this is that he did coke as a kid.

I think I've listed enough on Clinton. Please explain to me how Bush is more scandal ridden than this man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq was a threat back then. It was until the days leading up to the war when Sadaam said "oh crap better get rid of this stuff" and either destroyed it, hid it in Iraq, or shipped it to Syria (most likely). Didn't the Americans find some sort of mustard gas or something there?

Again, do you have any proof? They have found absolutely no evidence of WMDs in Iraq after spending billions, yes billions digging up sand all over Iraq. Further, all paperwork in the county indicates they were not running a WMD program. And finally our President has admitted there were no WMDs. Please stick to the facts if you are going to debate this.

In regards to purgury, the Republicans spent $90 million on a special investigator to dig up dirt on Clinton and Hillary. They only thing that got turned up was the fact that he had an affair on his wife and then subsequently lied about it. However the US Senate determined the impeachment for this offense was unjust and they absolved him of the charges. This is the fact and it isn't worth debating in this discussion because of that. How about lying to start a war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, do you have any proof? They have found absolutely no evidence of WMDs in Iraq after spending billions, yes billions digging up sand all over Iraq. Further, all paperwork in the county indicates they were not running a WMD program. And finally our President has admitted there were no WMDs. Please stick to the facts if you are going to debate this.

In regards to purgury, the Republicans spent $90 million on a special investigator to dig up dirt on Clinton and Hillary. They only thing that got turned up was the fact that he had an affair on his wife and then subsequently lied about it. However the US Senate determined the impeachment for this offense was unjust and they absolved him of the charges. This is the fact and it isn't worth debating in this discussion because of that. How about lying to start a war?

How is it not debatable? Some Republicans in the Senate simply did not want to see the country remove its President and thus tearing it apart. For some reason, the Democrats voted in lockstep. The constitution says Presidents may be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". I'd say an offense that can result in up to 5 years in jail counts.

Can you prove that Bush lied? That is a crock. I'm pretty sure you have not read all the paperwork in the country. You, just like me, have access to the media and I'm sure you do not consume your life studying everything there is to know about the war. Wasn't Sadaam violating the resolutions that the UN was passing, only for the UN to pass more instead of taking action like they said they would? Why don't YOU stay with the facts and stop dismissing anything you do not agree with as non-factual.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

...

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

..

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

The partisans among us might be surpised to find out that this was Clinton. The last paragraph contains the same talking points bush used about the war. I'm not going to try to find a link about the truck convoys to Syria in the days leading up to the war. I'm sure you all read about it since you like to stay "informed" and it was on one of those news networks (MSNBC) you probably watch in addition to whatever internet outlet I read it on.

This was a brutal dictator, and even if he didn't (he absolutely did) have a WMD program, he had a history of being hostile to our government and not obeying UN resolutions. The world is better off with him in jail. If we leave Iraq for the terrorists to take over, then that might end up being a worse situation. Right now is more of a transitional period in their history, and if we betray them and pull out now that would be a travesty.

In terms of the investigations, don't you think it'd be hard to find dirt on a guy whose crimes involve a small circle of individuals considering the man they're trying to prosecute is the most powerful man on Earth with the entire US government at his disposal?

Now please, let's get back to Al-Zarqawi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I need to get into the scandals? There is reason to believe clinton knowingly sold nuclear secrets to red china. There's whitewater, travelgate, Janet Reno's crusade against the 2nd amendment, the selling of the lincoln bedroom, pardongate. I'm sure there were a lot more I didn't think of just now. As flawed as Bush is, he's no Clinton. BTW, it is kinda odd when you think of when Clinton ordered airstrikes (3 times if my memory is correct) soon after major news regarding the Monicadate scandal came out. He was not a good President that's for sure. Didn't he choose where to go on vacation based upon polling data?

Each of those Clinton "scandals" falls into one of three categories: actions that were controversial but not illegal, hearsay, or cases in which the president was cleared of wrongdoing. Hardly what I'd call a scandal-ridden presidency, but for the Republican's constant digging for dirt.

As for polls, every president takes polling data into account when making decisions. Haven't you noticed that whenever Bush's approval rating slips, he raises the terror alert level or announces that his policies have thwarted another attack, never offering any evidence to back up these claims? Have you not noticed that neither of those have happened recently, since doing so stopped boosting his rating?

I have never heard that Clinton used polling data to decide where to vacation, but if it is true, so what? If you want to go there, tell me how you justify Bush spending nearly a third of his first term on vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What big weapons? Have you got some proof? I might be missing something, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

You must be completely out of your mind. And of course, the typical liberal response is, "do you have any proof?" DYOFDW, lib, but the "proof" you request is most likely on a news website somewhere. It was all over the national news for months while Saddam was denying inspections. No one's concocting this... it was there for all to see. But in typical lib fashion, you and your cronies turned a blind eye to it and now you request "proof." Again I say, "DYOFDW, lib." I've empowered you, now find your own proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard that Clinton used polling data to decide where to vacation, but if it is true, so what? If you want to go there, tell me how you justify Bush spending nearly a third of his first term on vacation.

How is it vacation? He moved White House operations to the ranch in Crawford. That was where he spent the majority of his supposed "vacation" time. Seriously, I think Bush is a screwup, but Clinton was more corrupt. There's a difference. That's why the Democrats can't win, they think that because their guy was the target of so much heat (he deserved it) that they can look for ways to pounce on Bush. What's Bush's Waco? The one real big screwup (it was a huuuge screwup on all levels going back decades) was Katrina. I flipped out when he made his "brownie" comment.

Why is it that you cannot see where your guy went wrong? Is it because you're a partisan? There was a story maybe a year ago that cited a study in which conservatives had a hard time seeing wrong in Bush even when he is wrong and liberals have a hard time with Clinton. It's clan mentality. I was for Bush and even probably joined the "Bush clan" at the beginning, but as time went on he continued to ignore the Libertarian wing (me), played the religious right as fools, and ran the government as a free spending (yet tax cutting) liberal while there was a war we don't have the money for being fought.

I have heard of the terror alert thing. How can you believe in that and not believe in Clinton repeatedly wagging the dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.