Alternate History: If Bush had not invaded Iraq

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
http://www.sunnyblog.com/

Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry delivered a speech today condemning President Bush for failing to invade Iraq in the follow-up of military action against the Talaban and Al Qaeda in Afghanastan. "Leaving this tyrant in power in contravention of numerous United Nations resolutions is unconscionable," Kerry told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "He has left available a base of operations and a source of supply and money."

Kerry went on to criticize the war against terror as "stalled" while the real threat to America, "Saddam Hussein’s Iraq goes untouched." Kerry said, "People are murdered daily in Baghdad and throughout the country. Rape rooms are a tragic reality. Torture chambers are full as Saddam’s sons carry out their sadistic impulses on the helpless and hapless victims of this regime. President Bush has done nothing as this brutal dictator takes the money from the Oil for Food to build palaces while his people go without food...

"There can be no doubt of Saddam’s ties to our terrorist enemies. We know that in 1998, after bin Laden issued his public fatwa against the United States, two al Queda members went to Iraq where they met with Iraqi intelligence. Within weeks, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden and extend to him safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden remained with the Talaban, but the invitation from Saddam was always there. Al-Zarqawi has long received refuge in Iraq. The terrorist Forouk Hijazi is known to train his forces there. Abu Nidal has safe haven in Baghdad as he plots murders. Abu Abbas, who planned the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, lives in safety in Iraq. And at Salman Pack, just south of Baghdad, terrorists train using the fuselage of a commercial jet airline. The trail of evidence revealing Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists is self-evident to all but those in the White House.

"Our own intelligence organizations and those of Great Britain, France and Germany, agree that Saddam is aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. For all that, he has been left free to further develop his weapons of mass destruction which he can deliver into the hands of those who make war against us at any moment. Saddam Hussein has trained, financed and armed terrorist who attack and murder us, yet our President stands stalled on the border of Iraq, preoccupied with wiping up the last remnants of the Talaban in Afghanistan. To leave this cancer in the midst of the Middle East is to have assured defeat in this so-called war against terror. We need fresh leadership, a President with the vision to remove those who support our enemies from power. To have not invaded Iraq, when the whole world acknowledged the necessity, is to leave a job undone and is the height of arrogance and criminal stupidity."
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,925
Tokens
Another blog site that simply makes up things.
Almost everybody alive agrees that Saddam and
the terrorists were two distinct entities. Obviously,
any one can find any opinion that they care to
support with the help of the net and the new
blog craze. Not against it at all, it proves our
democracy in action. However, I don't think
you can realistically use or quote much of these
sources as Bible.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
Alternate History: If Dubya had served in Viet Nam like he should have instead of pulling a cowardly no show maybe he would not be in the mess he is in now.



wil.
 

CURATOR / MEMBER EMERITUS
Joined
Dec 21, 1999
Messages
3,061
Tokens
Alternate History: If Dubya had served in Viet Nam like he should have instead of pulling a cowardly no show maybe he would not be in the mess he is in now.

wil.


Thoughts re VietNam:

1. Our goverment had "no right whatsoever" to draft / compel its citizens to fight in a "foreign" war-- no matter how "noble the fight against communism was-- though we did save the world from anarchy & self-destruction" by ultimately vanquishing it.

2. Thus, "no draft dodger was any less unpatriotic or more of a coward than anyone who served honorably & heroically over there". Let us stress btw, that those who served honorably went way beyond the call of duty, & deserve our utmost gratitude & respect.
In the history of mankind, not a single day has ever transpired without multiple locations experiencing rape & pillage, torture, ethnic cleansing; so if we label Bush a coward for not going to VietNam, then you and I are cowards for not volunteering to go to: Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and for not sending our own children to serve there as well.
Let us not dismiss how how past governments have treated the poor "grunt soldier": we left so many behind because the public was told "we were not in China, Laos, Cambodia-- & reports of other pow's shipped to those countries were dismissed".
The conditions in Korea & VietNam were wretched beyond belief: for instance Korea--soldiers received substandard equipment that caused them unneeded agony & death: hurried production & errors in selecting the appropriate model for the particular terrain, or manufacturing contractor-- resulted in many having misfiring weapons, boots that weren't waterproof & quickly broke, causing untold losses to frostbite in those wet & brutal winters, which were so severe, that there were tales of enemy soldiers huddling from the cold within eyesight of each other: not perishing in that cold had become of greater importance than fighting the enemy at times.
In light of that & how returning veterans have been shafted re medical care in most conflicts: how can we label a coward someone who does not go fight against a country that did not directly attack US soil? To tell someone to quit their career and leave their family behind to survive on a measly enlisted's salary?
Now, if the world is in imminent danger-- or if we get directly attacked, then all the rules change: you and I, & if need be our grandmothers & toddlers, are duty-bound to go-- or else we should be shot, imprisoned, or deported.

char
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
Fully agree with charleslanger....no dishonor in skipping out on fighting a war we shouldn't have been involved in in the first place....

Over 50,000 American troops killed in The Korean War
Over 50,000 American troops killed in The Vietnam War

We're not on this planet to fight other countries civil wars or provide a police force for the entire globe.....but as the politicians would have it it appears this is not true...

Let some other country make the next sequel to "Blackhawk Down"....with thier own dead troops, thier own multimillion dollar helicopters lost.....and with all the rest of the misery that these causes provide for the survivors and the relatives of the dead.....
 

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
7,379
Tokens
I agree, unless, you have said you are in favor of the war. Now if you favor said war, as bush did, but you would rather others go fight in the war, you are a coward.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,887
Messages
13,574,744
Members
100,882
Latest member
topbettor24
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com