The best purchase of peace that the price of war has ever achieved

Iraq Forum

People of all nations understand power, and they can comprehend the tremendous advantage the U.S. holds today. The victory in Iraq, done in such convincing fashion, will serve as a lesson to the world, even to N. Korea, and may well be the best purchase of peace that the price of war has ever achieved.

—Col. Walter J. Boyne, USAF (ret.)

i couldn't be more proud of the United States of America.

Larke, wanna make babies?

the world could use a few more of us.

My point exactly!

Yep, because they need someone to sap out of their money You guys make the perfect candidates

oneofpeace sure knows how to make friends, no? But of course, that's not what he's here for, now is it?

Nope, just to chat and debate. I just think it's funny how some people skew their own vision to support their ideas.

Now I know how Jim Jones got started

long may her banner wave!

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AM_FLAG.GIF

Make sure you have the plunger handy, h@ts, 'cause it's is a big load you're always dumping.

oneofpeace: i call 'em like i see 'em. all the liberals want to do is appease the terrorists. this is what led to 9/11 (thank you bill clinton). there is no appeasing them. they must be totally and utterly destroyed by any means necessary. and we aren't going to let a museum that got looted stand in our way. we aren't going to let the likes of ted kennedy and john kerry stand in our way. and we certainly aren't going to let france, germany, and russia stand in our way. we are in it for the long haul as long as we have a leader like George W. Bush in the white house. because we certainly don't have to worry about the might and resolve of our military machine. and to them i say "thank you". thank you to everyone in the http://www.inreview.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=268545 armed forces for protecting the liberty and freedom i hold so dear. and thank you to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. those "who more than self their country loved."

If a problem child throws a tantrum, rush him to the Dairy Queen for a Chocolate Sundae Deluxe to pacify his rage. The Spaniards just set back the progress against terrorism by a couple of decades—at least in Europe. (Ahh, the Europeans have a way with children, though, don't they?) Way to appease, er, I mean FIGHT that terrorism.

My sister was a dairy queen child. She now lives with her boyfriend in her parent's house, neither of them have a job, and no plans to ever get one. Just yesterday my mom gave her two credit cards and sent them to a hotel and to a casino. My sister hasn't been punished in any way since she was a young girl.

She will probably get pregnant and have my mom pay for and raise her child.

I on the other hand spent more time with my father who beleived in discaplin. He never once hit me or raised his voice to me, but he was very direct and stern and when he said no it meant no.

I have 1,000% more respect for my father's methods being raised than I do my mothers, even though my mother was just trying to make me happy.

My sister's a louse, and I've got a college degree and a job. I hope she's happy.

Don't give up, sport, keep trying!

Maybe this will help clear the cobwebs:
http://www.inreview.com/showthread....966&forumid=371

h@ts, are you acting coy or do you really not get it?

And people wonder why curley repeats himself so often...

I understand exactly what he was saying, but aren't you being nieve to think he wanted to do anything but slag off the Spanish again?

I'm not sure what you mean by slag off the spanish, can you please elaborate?

I read that, but who are you referring to by "he"?

All rats considered and set aside, anyone who accuses President Bush of being responsible for what 19 terrorists decided to do on 9.11 lacks all sensibility and credibility—and no one in his/her non-liberal mind will take that person seriously.

Bush did not plan 9/11 if that's what you mean Curley, but there was a great deal of negligence to go around. Not just on Bush, but in his entire cabinet.

Whidden a defector is just that. What you have to do is weigh their words against what is reasonable and come up with a cost. Certainly it seems plausable what Bush's ex aide said about his lack of concern about Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. I don't remember Bush ever speaking about them before then do you?

So you don't believe there was ANY negligence concerning 9/11 on the Bush administrations part?

Are you kidding? If this had happened under Clinton, you all would be blaming him like you're trying to do now for it.

I don't think you guys have any logic or reasoning skills what so ever.

do you find it so hard to believe that someone would do something for money?

he may not be blatantly making things up but I'd be willing to bet his motives aren't pure.

he did work for the government after all. That makes me wary right off the bat.

When someone airs an expose', and $$$ are involved. it would be wise to question motives. A purist would give this information to the Press or TV for nothing.

Also, no administration is fallible. They all make mistakes that could be the result of late or bad information, etc.

Heads of everything are only as good as the people who are under him or her.

And so we are left with absolutely nothing to use for our judgements of the situations.

There are no good answers to this problem, in my opinion.

Even evidence of proof can be manufactured in this high-tech age.

Why did Clarke wait until this election year to do his thing?

He was in 4 admins. , wasn't he? Looks kind of suspicious to me.

Good point becker. Maybe he wanted to influence the elections. Maybe he believes Bush isn't telling the truth.....AGAIN!!!

I don't know the motives of this guy and maybe he means well or just to sell books, but one thing I do know. Bush never campaigned like he is now on any platform of terrorism what so ever. He told the nation he would give us tax cuts because the projected surplus was ours. Then after he did it and deficits were projected, he said we need more tax cuts to help the economy.

As far as I know, this was Bush's main platform in running for president. Now suddenly he wants us to believe he had Al Qaeda in his sights from day one.

Look, there is some credible things to look at here despite what ever motives you think Clarke suddenly has. The question is why is Clarke suddenly claiming these things?

I believe this nation was in the hands of a baffoon Jan 20, 2001. The nation is a mess now 3yrs later and it's because of decisions tied to this current president. So I don't think it's all that far fetched that Bush made a mess out of 9/11 too. However I don't believe he's the only one to blame

Clarke has accused Bush of ignoring the threat of Al Qaedea pre 9/11 and then chosing to use 9/11 as a convenient pretext for invading Iraq.

whidden: it doesn't get any more paraphrased (or accurate) than that.

oh, yes. he's angry, bitter and he's just trying to make a quick buck off his book as a way of getting even with the Bush administration. he reminds me of a whiny little brat. his mama needs to slap him.

Yes, Richard Clarke is just a Baby Huey. http://cmpulling.com/char_huey.gif

Good idea - regression into childhood could well be as good as sticking your fingers in you ears and screaming ahhhhh to avoid hearing things you don't like.

Well, h@ts, in Nov. we "children" are going to VOTE for the President of our United States. What will you be doing that day in Euroland besides twiddling your thumbs and posting useless rhetoric on this board?

My pal Dekka speaks about what he deeply feels. I think he means that he is fearful about being exposed to outside inroads.

He thinks our country's actions are inviting accelerated terrorism on our land. And he worries about our defenses.

I will repeat my question, which no one seems to answer. What is your solution to the terrorist problem.? We already know the facts. It's not a question of responsibility. That's a continuing debate.

It's a metaphor.

Our troops tromp around the world like international police, and obviously somebody's going to be mad about it. What if Middle Eastern armies were roaming around on US soil? You wouldn't be too happy about it would you?

So they struck back. Of course, we are going to defend ourselves. Now there are terrorist organizations that prey on disillusioned young men and brainwash them into thinking that America must be obliterated. While they have valid grievances (we are infringing on their sovereignity) they go about it all wrong. So of course we must fight more wars to ensure our safety.

But wouldn't a better way to ensure our safety be not pissing people off in the first place?

To make this clear, before you accuse me of sympathizing with terrorism or suggesting that we give in, let me spell it out in simple terms.

1. American troops are infringing on Middle Eastern sovereignty
2. Middle Easterners don't like it
3. Muslim extremists use religion to recruit angry young men
4. Terrorist attacks are carried out
5. We respond to the terrorism


Now, all of this could have been avoided if we kept our troops on American soil, using the military for defense purposes only. There'd be no reason to fight terrorism, because terrorists would not be able to recruit anybody, because they wouldn't be pissed at us.

Terrorism didn't start and it certainly doesn't end with Al Qaeda. Good place to start...you're right about that but there is much work to be done. Many more terrorist organizations. Iraq was littered with Terrorists and I agree.. our work is nearly done there(still need to keep some force there) and we should move on. This is coming in a few short months. At which time we shall move on to the next Islamic Militants. Take a number. Any one who claims to be a terrorist or harbors terrorism can stand by. We are stepping to ya. These colors don't run. Sleep well tonight...the Marines are on duty.

Well said devildog. I couldn't agree more. Bless our troops for fighting for the greater good.

Ink me in for what the Devildog said. Very good.

devildog
Really? How did millions of people die then? Who ran the torture chambers? Who beat or Killed athletes who didn't perform well enough? Who tortured the wives and raped the children there? If they weren't terrorists then I don't know the definition.
1. Most died in the Iran Iraq war. US supported both sides.
2. Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds. Instead of US condemnation, months later the US was shaking hands and making deals with the tyrant.
3. After Gulf war one, the Shiites were encouraged by the US to rise up against Saddam. Saddam used his military to slaughter thousands. The US did nothing.
4. Saddam's governments ran the torture chambers.

I wasn't aware that we were a security force. We are there to kill them as soon as the cowards poke their turbans up.
The Geneva convention states that the occupying force must maintain security. America is the occupying force.

h@ts: remember Rumsfeld was told he needed a far larger force before invading?
Looks like old Rummy was right. The fastest, bloodless, most successful military operation in history. UH RAW
More US troops have died since the "most successful military operation in history" was accomplished. You are just kidding yourself that the hard work is over. It isn't and won't be for a long time.

You actually believe that the US military can and should just wonder round the middle east, enforcing it's will on whoever it deems to be harboring terrorism
UH ...yeah. But they don't "wonder"
Have a happy Armageddon.

The US military is struggling to bring peace and securtiy in Iraq.
Nice word...struggling.
Yes and appropriate. Do you think if Bush had a choice he would have gone back to the UN for help.

The U.S.A. will do what ever it it feels necessary. Power of opponent means nothing. We have the best trained and best armed military the world has ever seen. Unmatched and unafraid. Bring it on.
Your military is a war machine. It is not trained to keep the peace. This is a security, intelligence problem that relies of cooperation between allies. And of course political solutions.

It is you Hats, that needs education. I will not debate an issue like this with you. You think Saddam and his regime are benign in the mass slaughter of the people of Iraq. Almost everyone else in the world knows differently. If you don't understand that by now than I can be of no help to you. You think that he and his henchmen are innocent of Terror crimes than fine. The rest of us know better.

Because there are hundreds of thousands of Innocent civilian people that were slaughtered at his hands and you choose to blame ANYTHING else such as War , U.S.A., or somebody NOT coming in to stop some of it. Who ordered the killing of Civilians????? Who carried it out???? And just because I ask these questions doesn't mean I don't know the answer.

Maybe that pic of Blair with Kaddafi will come back to bite him in the a$$ also.
And that was not the reason for going to war. Remember the 17 mandates that Saddam fail to meet??? I don't remember the President (let alone Rummy) saying it was because he gased the Kurds, do you?