As per usual, your reasoning is shallow. The only thing you are right about in your screed is that you voted for Bush.
But let's go on to this laugh-a-minute post of yours.
Wrong yet again. I am ashamed to say I voted for Ali Bubba,hoping he would be better than I suspected he would be. I was never even tempted to vote for Buchannan,and wouldn't if he were to run again. I am not a isolationist,and he is. I know this is a strange concept to you,but sometimes people hold Bubba-2 in contempt because he deserves to be held in contempt. He IS Bubba-1 without the blowjobs.
More tawdry bollocks. You are as isolationist as the day is long. You would leave Saddam alone to develop WMD. You would pretend that the mean, nasty world cannot come back to bite us on the ass. You do not even bother to address my contention that Saddam would be able to supply Al Qaeda with tactical nuclear "suitcase" warheads, simply because you know I am right.
This is like listening to an America-Firster in 1940.
Unlike YOUR "deep understanding" that "The US MUST go to war against Iraq because Israel wants us to,and because Bubba Bush needs to keep his poll numbers up.",right?
More straw man reasoning:
Minor Argument: Bush is going to War because he needs to keep his poll numbers up and because he is being manipulated by the Jewish Lobby.
Major Argument: Everything Bush says is a lie.
Conclusion: Those who support this war are suckers and are being manipulated by Bush, who is a proven liar, and the Jewish Lobby.
Creating straw men allows you to neatly sidestep the core issues of war and peace. That is both cheap and tawdry, and characteristic of the man who has neither argument nor fact, and is left to pound the table as if that will carry the debate.
No kidding? On the other hand,EVERY Iraqui citizen deserves to die because they are all joined at the hip with Hussein,right?
Another cheap little straw man argument. Here you assert that I want all innocent Iraquis to die. That is a lie, and both of us know it, but you went ahead and peddled it anyway. I simply want Saddam and his Takriti Mafia to die.
But you DO destroy the Iraqui regime because bin Laden used the Saudis to attack us?
No, you destroy the Iraqui regime because it is predatory, murderous, and a long term threat to both our national interest and those of our allies as well as to the very lives of thousands of our people. This has something to do with Al Qaeda, but only indirectly, and only in the future, should Saddam be left alone.
Based on elite political families like the Bushs,the Gores,the Kennedys,the Rockefellers,and others owning a LOT of stock in oil companies and other connected companies.
That is minor compared to the overriding national interest of maintaining the free flow of Persian Gulf oil at market prices. Political and familial connections come and go. National Interest never changes.
When did it fall apart? Certainly not right after the attacks on 9-11. The Bush administration allowed the family of bin Laden that was living in the US to take a charter flight out of the country at the same time all other flights were grounded.
Done on the special request of the King of Saudi Arabia, who understood the the bin Laden family as a whole was blameless for the actions of its murderous offspring. Bin Ladens were not safe in the United States following the attack. That said, what does your story about the evacuation of the bin Ladens prove about the campaign against Iraq? Nothing, of course. But that didn't stop you from hurling innuendo against the President.
The Saudis themselves are not a military threat to us,and never will be unless they can hire enough Philapinos to fight for them that a war would be possible. What Saudi Arabia provides are funds,a safe haven,and promotion of radical Islan through all the Mosques they are building all over the world. Yet,we are about to expend our wealth and our youth in a war to defeat the biggest threat Saudi Arabia faces,Iraq. HOW does this make any sense?
Of course it does, but the Kingdom has not engaged in overt acts of war against the United States. They have tolerated the growth of radical Wahabism since 1979 because they are Wahabists. If they want "Wahabism In One Country", to borrow a phrase from Stalin, then so be it. While you can expect them to crack down on Al Qaeda (and they are, as AQ is just as much of a threat to the Royal Family as it is to us), you cannot expect the regime to attack its own Wahabist ideology. The legitimacy of the Royal Family rests on the consent of the religious leadership of the country who support the claim of the Al Saud clan to the custody of the two holy shrines of Mecca and Medina.
Our invasion and occupation of Iraq will do two things:
1. Place American forces in the very center of the Persian Gulf region, able to strike out at Al Qaeda anywhere in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
2. Create a "West German" model for the Iraqui government that will serve to undermine both the Theocracy in Teheran and the Wahabist monarchy in Riyadh. The Iraquis consider themselves to be a cosmopolitan people, not reactionary like their tribal neighbors. In the long run, this will pay off for us in spades.
This is the long range plan, aside from the immediate benefit of undoing Saddam's WMD ambitions. Pretty smart for a dumb guy from Texas, I think.
They should just do the best they can do,then. Why the hell should we do their fighting for them? As far as that goes,we could sell them the equipment they need to do the job.We're not doing their fighting for them, but we are helping to safeguard their country in the long run from WMD attack. We're acting in our national interest, first and foremost. Israel's security is a side benefit, but an important side benefit, in my opinion.
Yes,but in MY opinion,formost is his desire to go down in history as only figure other than Mohammed to unify the various Arab tribes. His only hope of doing this is through intimidation. THAT is why he wants nukes,bragging rights and intimidation. He can't use them agaiNst Israel or the US because either would take Iraq off the map if he did. While it is true that the US has developed a "big wuss" reputation on the international stage,this would change the instant any country or leader attacked us with nukes. We would respond in a unbelievably violent way.
Pray tell, rocket scientist, why the hell should we wait for him to attack us with nukes, then?! We are concerned about Saddam because we know he has dealt with Al Qaeda in the past and will do so in the future. You don't just sit and wait until you're attacked by a mystery nuke that came out of nowhere and whose responsibility was claimed by noone.
I mean, this doesn't take a physics degree to figure this stuff out, fella.
More HorseHillary. While you may be right (and probably are) about the results of a attack on the country of Israel,this wouldn't exterminate Jews. There are more Jews living outside Israel than there are inside Israel.
Oh, so we shouldn't mind if all those Israeli Jews are killed off. They can be replaced by the non-Israeli Jews who will be drop-dead willing to move to a radioactive desert. I mean, I don't want to build a straw man argument here, but you're not leaving me much choice in the matter.
Of course there is,the best reason of all,self-defense and survival. The same reasons the Saudis are supporting the war,although nobody wants to talk about them. I guess it's kind of embarrassing to admit we are fighting to protect the very people responsible for the attacks on us.
I mean, you just go through this making my points for me without knowing it.
You assert that the Saudi Government ("the Saudis") was responsible for the attack on our country. This must, of needs be, be based on an assumption that AQ and the Royal Family and its intelligence apparatus work hand in glove. That is a questionable assertion, at best.
You then proceed to assert that we are fighting for the survival of the Saudis. But I thought you said earlier that Bush was being manipulated by the Jews? Make up your mind!
Besides, if your contention that everything Bush says is a lie is true, than how do the Saudis and the Jewish Lobby know that they're not being lied to?
See where this kind of Rhesus Monkey reasoning leads to?
If it's all lies, how do you know where the truth begins. Or, as a UFO wag once commented, "If the Truth is Out There, What's in Here?"
Are you saying the leaders of countries like Iran and Syria would willingly step aside so Saddam Hussein took over control of their countries and political systems? Why would you think they would do this? They are all pretty much dictators on the same level he is.
If he gets WMD and runs us out of the Middle East, then he's the Big Dog on the block. He doesn't need to invade his neighbors. They will come to him as supplicants. That's where appeasement leads you. Then he can deal with the Jews in his own good time. Or he can deal with us.
HorseHillary! I never made this claim. He has no doubt supported some elements of Al Queda and other terrorists organizations at various times,just like the US supported HIM and bin Laden at one time.
Okay, thanks for agreeing with me. By so agreeing with me, you have indicated that there is a valid connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. That's called a casus belli in any law dictionary.
The U.S. supported Saddam only with enough weapons to keep the Iranian Army off Iraqui territory. Saddam started his damn war in 1980. We didn't.
We never supported bin Laden with big time dollars. Binnie was his own man. We supported Ahmad Shah Massoud and the Northern Alliance crowd during the Anti-Soviet War. Bin Laden was a creature of his own money, that of interested Saudis and other Arabs, and the Pakistani Army Interservices Intelligence bureau (who also helped create the Taleban). We had contacts with him, but we didn't create the sumbitch.
Why fight Al Qaeda when you share an interest with them?I dunno. Why not ask the Bush family?
Once again, a cheap canard that has no application to the argument at hand. Unless, of course, you are willing to regale us with the "proof" that Bush and Al Qaeda are working hand in glove?
The World Wonders....
If Saddam can use Al Qaeda, he will.Of course. Just like we used them and others when they were fighting against the Russians.
Okay, this is where I get p'od. What business do you have being against this war when you've admitted not once, but twice, of a possible connection between Saddam and AQ and the probability that he will use such a connection to our disadvantage in the future?
So far, you're not doing too good. This is called "whipping the scalded dog" in argument.
Now the following chain of reasoning simply reveals how thin is the reed on which your whole belief system hangs:
This is the foundation of your argument: that everything George W. Bush says is a lie.No,just most of it.
George W. Bush cannot be trusted.
That is a absolute certainy!
Everyone who believes that he is an honorable man pursuing a hellish, if necessary war, is either a knave, a sucker, or a fool.
Or a blind dreamer,much like the Clint-Roids were with him.
See, this is where your whole belief system collapses. Most of the people have to be either knavish, foolish, suckers, or blind dreaming Bush-bots because they trust this guy.
But not you! No sir. You have a lock on the Truth!
For you to be right, everyone else has to be wrong. For you to be right, Saddam has to be of no conceivable threat to the United States. For you to be right, the Bush Family and the Al Qaeda have to be working hand in glove. For you to be right, Bush has to be manipulated by both the Jews and the Saudis. However, for you to be right, Bush has to be a liar of monumental proportions, so the Jews and the Saudis can't be all that sure that he is not lying to him?
So how can you be right when you are so maddenly wrong about so many things?
The rest of your rebuttal doesn't even deserve a response, so far off the mark is it. Your entire screed is one descent into Straw Man Argument with Ad Hominem thrown in for good measure.
Further argument with you is pointless, as it would be a waste of both FR bandwidth and my time. I shall therefore ignore you from here on in, secure in the knowledge that I have soundly horsewhipped you.
I know this is a strange concept to you,but sometimes people hold Bubba-2 in contempt because he deserves to be held in contempt. He IS Bubba-1 without the blowjobs.
That statement, from the beginning of your rant, is not only deeply contemptible, but a fine example of circular reasoning:
I hold Bubba-2 in Contempt.
Why?
Because he deserves to be held in Contempt.
Calling this President "Bill Clinton without the blowjobs" is deeply offensive, and a lie. But since you've done nothing but peddle falsehoods and shoddy argument masquerading as outrage, one should not be surprised at the level to which you are willing to descend.
You sir, are an intellectual charlatan, and have been exposed as such.
Now go away. I shall not bother with you again.
Be Seeing You,
Chris