<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 18 2007, 05:11 PM) [snapback]408021[/snapback]</div> That's bull crap...I never 'sided with Iraq'...ever. I just didn't feel the invasion approach was the best way to deal with Iraq. Not agreeing with invasion of a soveign nation of no threat to us and 'siding' with them are VERY different things. Also false and even admitted by your lord and savior GW Bush. yea, those 10s of thousands dead by our hand and the hand of the hand of the insurgents who now prosper since Sadaam is no longer there to keep them out sure appreciat the liberty and freedom from tyranny. I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree with the process and there are lot bigger fish to fry than iraq if you want to free people from oppression. Man you read very different news reports than I do...that's all I can say if you truely believe the fantasy you've got written above. I'm all for freedom and liberty for those who seek it for themselves, but it's not something to be imposed on an undesiring populous.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 18 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]408037[/snapback]</div> Sided? Ok, wrong choice of words. I'll give you that one and apologize but how else did you think change was going to be initiated in Iraq? Please, please don't say sanctions or international pressure because there was 13-14 years of that which did very little good. As well as numerous UN resolutions which Iraq just basically ignored. Do me a favor though and quit saying "Sovereign nation" "Sovereign nation" over and over as if it lends credibility to Iraq or your POV. It doesn’t and it makes you sound desperate for someone to agree with you. As far as the threat aspect of Iraq goes provided some proof that GWB said Iraq was not a danger or a threat. Without the proof presented I’ll assume that you recognize that was a foolish statement and that you’re just blowing smoke out of one of your orifice’s. If you were and Iraqi would you or would you not want America to come into Iraq and oust Saddam? If you were a citizen without freedom or liberty living in another country would you not hope be rekindled inside you to see that someone out there was aiding all men to achieve freedom and liberty. Wildkow
So all you well informed terrorist fighters and Iraq war supporters tell me the answers to a couple of questions. Why did Bin Laden attack the US, not just 9/11 but all the other attacks before it? What is the history between Bin Laden and Saddam? For that matter the history between the US, Iran and Iraq (Saddam) as well? Once you have some understanding of the situation, you will have a far better view of what is actually going on and possible implications of it on the US.
You guys are arguing the wrong point here. Iraq is about oil, everyone knows it, but no one wants to say it or admit it. Most of the US oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Mexico is in serious decline (15% yearly est. decline). Saudi Arabia declined 8% last year and MANY people expect that decline to accelerate. Venezuela hates the US after Bush tried to topple Hugo Chavez. They are now looking to sell their oil to China. There reserves are mostly heavy crude anyways. And despite Canada being the largest supplier to the US, They actually import as much from the North shore (also declining fast) and OPEC as they export to the US, so they are more of a conduit, then a supplier (As ME imports drop, Canada will ship its oil east to itself rather than south to the US.) So where will we get oil? Iraq is THE only proven reserves that can make any dent for us. Not only that, but Saudi's wanted us out of their country and the US NEEDS to have a military presence in the the middle eastern region. So the question to the lefties is: if we pull out of Iraq and those ME imports do drop steadily over the coming years as expected, what energy do we use to build the post oil infrastructure? Some ethanol plants are only baby steps to what we need, and without oil, we won't be able to do anything. So the question to the righties is: why are we investing billions to hold control in a dangerous region, only to slightly prolong the oil party, rather than pulling out and investing ALL of it to build the post oil infrastructure, now, while we have some oil to work with. I really tire of the algore arguing. It's really irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we need to get off the black stuff for environmental reason, peak oil reasons, national security, or just the plain fact that we have a massive trade deficit in order to keep it flowing. We need to get off it for all those reasons, if you don't think so, than you must HATE AMERICA!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 14 2007, 02:22 AM) [snapback]404934[/snapback]</div> Just responding out loud over here. What does Lieberman expect after six years of deceitful and arrogant incompetence? What's "unacceptable", Joe, is lying to Congress and the rest of us, and launching a disastrous war on trumped up pretexts, with no plan, no long term strategy and no exit. The war against Iraq was planned before 9-11. To me, the saddest part of this dogtrot is that we have been so badly governed that we are now unable to discern whether there might be any truth left in what Bush says. So, what's scary is that the person whom we elected to be our leader, watchdog and protector, has shown himself to be an incompetent liar. Isn't this like finding out on the operating table that your surgeon got his degree from a mail order clinic? I think it's a sign of just how corrupt is Congress that Bush has not been impeached. Hell, he hasn't even had his wrist slapped. The Republicans under DeLay had no qualms about going after Clinton for an offense many orders of magnitude less than what Bush has wrought.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Angel Flight Pilot @ Mar 20 2007, 06:32 PM) [snapback]409239[/snapback]</div> I heard on the radio that the White house isn't going to let any of the staff be supoenaed for testimony. In fact, they won't testify at all. The only thing that is going to be allowed is an informal interview for which there will be no transcripts and they will not be under oath. To which I reply...why bother?
