The question here fighting on a battlefield of OUR choice... Iraq > was that choice...
By what right ?? certainly NOT with UN approval, despite the sanctions. Certainly NOT because AQ was there, they absolutely were NOT, certainly NOT because Hussein had ties to them, It is FACT that the US had MUCH closer ties than Iraq, should i go on ?? << For American interests Bush was right... Exactly what were those interests that allowed this. What was the single threat to the US or its territory or covenant accords ?? On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > The question here fighting on a battlefield of OUR choice... Iraq > was that choice... AQ said yes and suffered a strategic defeat... > Very simple... THe other option was to fight on the battle field of > AQ's choice.... For American interests Bush was right... > > On Feb 23, 5:08 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: >> why did al qaeda go to Iraq? Because the war we intiated left >> a power vaccuum and ample oppurtunities to kill Americans. >> >> If not for the war, there would not have been al qaeda. >> >> On Feb 23, 4:26 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Bush won the then central front in Iraq... The Central front has >> > moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... AQ went to >> > Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... Now it returned back >> > to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan where government >> > rarely existed for the last 500 years... >> >> > On Feb 22, 1:20 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Lew, >> >> > > First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? Robert Gates who was >> > > Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... >> >> > > Second I would like a reliable/cerdible source quote to add any >> > > credence that Obama or any one else for that matter is in favor of any >> > > serviceman or woman being killed or an admission that is solely YOUR >> > > opinion. >> >> > > Third I was under the impression that this was a "war on terror". Your >> > > claim is is to insinuate and flat out state that there are no more >> > > terrorists.... please explain your statement in connection with the >> > > Bush claim (and only claim) throughout that this is a "war on terror". >> >> > > Last if the war was "won" I would like a date/link for that formal >> > > expression and an explanation in explicit and coherent terms the need >> > > for continued US occupation. >> >> > > Failing in your ability to do the above a simple statement covering >> > > your bias and lack of situational grasp will suffice. >> >> > > On Feb 22, 11:52 am, lew <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > Republicans haven't reached the point of Democrat desperation a couple >> > > > of years ago when DEMOCRATS cheered each WOUNDED and each DEAD >> > > > military report as a victory to defeat the hated George W. Bush. >> >> > > > Republicans can NEVER stoop so low as to promote a losing strategy >> > > > (Vote against the Surge) just to attain more Ameican woundings and >> > > > deaths to gain politically. >> >> > > > Our own presidemt, Barack Obama, voted against the surge because he >> > > > knew that could/would lead to more woundings and deaths. >> >> > > > BUSH WON IN IRAQ. Democrats lovingly referred to Iraq as "Bush's >> > > > War." >> >> > > > BUSH WON BUSH'S WAR. >> >> > > > On Feb 22, 6:53 am, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > Why do Republicans Desperately need President Obama >> > > > > and the Democrat controlled Congress to fail? >> >> > > > > Sean Lewis >> > > > > February 22, 2009 >> >> > > > > President Obama has been President for barely >> > > > > a month. >> >> > > > > He is facing a Crisis equal if not greater that the >> > > > > Crisis Bush faced after 9/11. >> >> > > > > After 9/11 the country unified behind President Bush >> > > > > and gave him almost unanimous support to deal >> > > > > with the crisis. It was about country first, not party. >> >> > > > > Yet even BEFORE President Obama took office >> > > > > Republicans, their surrogates and the press have >> > > > > ridiculed and second guessed EVERYTHING >> > > > > President Obama has done. >> >> > > > > President Obama has asked for input from all corners because >> > > > > he NEEDS the help of ALL AMERICANS to deal with >> > > > > this crisis the same way ALL AMERICANS rallied behind >> > > > > President Bush on 9/11. >> >> > > > > Republicans instead of offering their advice and then understanding >> > > > > that they DO NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY on what Obama >> > > > > decides and backing him in a unified effort to deal with the >> > > > > economic problems are instead ridiculing every decision and >> > > > > proclaiming failure before the ink is even dry on the BILLS leaving >> > > > > Committees! >> >> > > > > The Country is facing multiple crisis of which any one could >> > > > > create disaster for America and Americans. Yet the Republicans >> > > > > seem hell bent on being obstructionists, and adding to the chaos. >> >> > > > > Why? >> >> > > > > Because the simple fact is that if Obama and the Democratic >> > > > > lead Congress fixes the many problems left behind by the >> > > > > Republican controlled Congress and Republican Administration >> > > > > it will CONFIRM and VALIDATE that the Republicans were >> > > > > irresponsible and incompetent during the years they had Majority >> > > > > Control in the Government. >> >> > > > > Republicans are not thinking about the Country or American >> > > > > people first, they are thinking about the REPUBLICAN party >> > > > > first! >> >> > > > > The American people said 'we want change' and that change was >> > > > > to let the Democrats run things. That Republicans no longer get >> > > > > to demand it is 'their way or the highway', yet this is >> > > > > still how they are governing. >> >> > > > > The Republicans use the guise of they are the Minority party >> > > > > and their job is to oppose the Democrats. The problem is the >> > > > > Country is on the brink of a monumental collapse and this is >> > > > > a time for cooperation, NOT opposition. So why do it? >> >> > > > > Because for the Republican Party to be of consequence again >> > > > > in the future, the Republican party needs the President and the >> > > > > Democratic controlled Congress to fail. If the Democrats do fail, >> > > > > then the Republicans can say " see this wasn't our fault NO ONE >> > > > > could have prevented this from happening. >> >> > > > > However if President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress >> > > > > succeeds, it only emphasises that not only did the Republicans not >> > > > > acknowledge the crisis as they arose but even after they finally >> > > > > admitted the problem they did nothing to remedy the problem either >> > > > > through >> > > > > ignorance or incompetence. >> >> > > > > So do not be fooled by the insincere arguments that Republicans >> > > > > are trying to be bipartisan and want to help. They have an agenda, >> > > > > and that agenda is for the failure of the Democrats, even if it >> > > > > destroys the Country in the process.- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
