Election 2004!!! Make YOUR vote count....

[southpaw]

By the way flea what are the terrorists doing? Trying to take over the world and killing people. Sounds a lot like the Nazis to me.

I guess we should have let Hitler make a deal and stay im power like Kerry wanted to do with Saddam.

[fleaflicker]

Well, if we're so worried about these terrorists, why don't we go to war with Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 highjackers came from there, and there's a lot of hatred for the United States amongst many people there as well. I'm sure that the Saudi Royal family is harboring terrorists. Remember the 9-11 report where about 28 pages involving Saudi Arabia was left out? Doesn't that kinda sound like they might be involved in this a bit? So if Saudi Arabia was involved, and Iraq wasn't involved, then why did we declare war on Iraq? Because the Saudi Royal family is really friendly with our President, that's why!
Besides, since Iraq had these rockets, how far could they go? I believe that I heard that yes, they had rockets, but the fartherest they could go was about 200 miles or so. Seeing as Iraq is about 9,000 miles from here as the crow flies (though the crow would probably get hit by a 747 or die of exhaustion and fall into the ocean before it could get there), I don't see how this is an immenent threat to the United States.

And you're right, southpaw, we waited in World War II until war was forced upon us. In this war, we forced war upon them. That's another difference.

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="63924"]Well, if we're so worried about these terrorists, why don't we go to war with Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 highjackers came from there, and there's a lot of hatred for the United States amongst many people there as well. I'm sure that the Saudi Royal family is harboring terrorists. Remember the 9-11 report where about 28 pages involving Saudi Arabia was left out? Doesn't that kinda sound like they might be involved in this a bit? So if Saudi Arabia was involved, and Iraq wasn't involved, then why did we declare war on Iraq? Because the Saudi Royal family is really friendly with our President, that's why!
Besides, since Iraq had these rockets, how far could they go? I believe that I heard that yes, they had rockets, but the fartherest they could go was about 200 miles or so. Seeing as Iraq is about 9,000 miles from here as the crow flies (though the crow would probably get hit by a 747 or die of exhaustion and fall into the ocean before it could get there), I don't see how this is an immenent threat to the United States.

And you're right, southpaw, we waited in World War II until war was forced upon us. In this war, we forced war upon them. That's another difference.[/quote]

The rocket found this summer with sarin loaded in the war head obviously couldn't have reached the US, but could've reached Israel. Think about the consequences there.

If you think defeating terrorism is simply finding bin Laden, you're sadly mistaken. As I've said many times before - I'd much rather have a President that took initiative to deal with a threat before they attacked, instead of waiting to be attacked. JK said in his acceptance speech at the dem convention - "If attacked, we will go after terrorists". I paraphrased there since I don't have the exact quote. Well Mr. Kerry, we've been attacked and I don't care to see another.

Defeating terrorism must be a long term objective. Kill or capture the bad guys now, and convince governments to stop teaching radical Islam (i.e. hate any non-Muslim and kill them). It's a long road, no doubt, but President Bush is the first president to take on that charge and we've known about this threat for many, many years.

[southpaw]

flea: once again your not thinking outside the box. Those rockets might very well have been smuggled somewhere lets say New York and detonated. One of those rockets with sarin can kill 100,000's in a metro-area like New York. Open your mind flea this is the real danger the dirty bomb. Smuggled in weapons from places like Iraq are the threat Flea not a ballistic missle. Watch or read the "Sum of All Fears" by Clancy. And you comment about the Saudi's their in it but don't give us the BS about Bush and Faad being in some sort of conspiracy. IF that's the case gas would be a buck and gallon and Bush would beat Kerry easily. (CH). You know Hitler was an Austrian and we didn't hold them accountable for that!

[fleaflicker]

But still, why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia if we're so caught up about terrorists? The royal family's fighting amongst themselves, and there has been talk that possibly (unsupported of course) one of 'bad guys' in the Saudi royal family had 9-11 done. I do admit, that's a contrast from what I said earlier about the royal family, but most of them are considered U.S. allies. However, read up about it. The situation over there seems unstable, and there is no doubt that they are harboring terrorists, possibly more than Iraq and Afghanistan. And we did go after Afghanistan for harboring terrorists.
Southpaw, I said nothing about Osama, so don't put any words in my mouth. And yes, I did read Sum of All Fears. And yes, that is a biological dirty weapon, but if the terrorists wanted one, why would they buy it off Iraq when it's almost as easy for them (and probably cheaper) to make it themselves? There is still no way that missile could have reached the US. Maybe Israel, but that would be their problem, and likely the Palestians after getting lots of bad press, rather than ours.

[LionPride]

Let me understand this. A missle strike in Israel would be their problem? Are you kidding me? That line is about as anti-Sematic as I've heard in a long time. If it weren't for us, Israel would not exist today. They are completely surrounded by sworn enemies. Almost weekly, suicide bombers that are radical Muslims are killing innocent people, including children, in Israel. This isn't just Israels problem - it's ours as well. Would you feel the same if France was the threat?

[once a runner]

Nobody has answered flea's question....why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia?

[LionPride]

Tell you what, I'll make an attempt to answer that question as soon as one of you attempt to answer a question I've asked several times.

What would you all be saying right now if nothing was done in Iraq by our President, and Hussein was responsible for a terrorist attack on us?

[Lion-line05]

All I have to say is if Kerry gets into office it will be a long 4 years for everyone and I can guarentee that there will be more terrorists attacks if Kerry gets in!!! George Bush needs to win this election for our country not to fall any further than we already are!! The reason our country is falling is b/c of the "great" lol Clinton and Bush is gradually turning that around!! What people have to realize is that it takes time to get things done and that it does not happen over night!!!!

[thebackwall]

Lion-line, for once, I'm in full agreement with you about the things taking time. LP, if we didn't attack Iraq, Kerry would be completely on the other side of his story now (if he has a side). He would be saying that we needed to attack Iraq because it was the right war at the right place at the right time, it doesn't matter what a politician really thinks, it's what gets him more votes.