Iraq Has Made us Safer From Terrorism My Ass.

Search

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
If the American people ever needed more inspiration to march on Washington, dismantle the White House brick by brick and throw the current, lying usurpers out on their worthless asses, consider this...

For months, those of us who care more about our country than we do our party; who care enough to do the research past the CMM (Corporate - *read conservative* - Mindless Media - *read Faux News, Newsmax.com, and "conservative" talk radio*); who have refused to be intimidated with idiotic charges and accusations of being anti-American, unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops - we have said this war with Iraq will not make us one iota safer from terrorism. Why? Because Iraq is (or at least was) a secular nation that has acted more as an ally in our war on terror than an enemy. Hussein saw radical Islamic fundamentalism as big a threat to his dictatorship (as apparently his dictatorial western counterpart - that'd be Dumya) sees it to his, and promptly stomped it out whenever it reared its ugly head.

And why should those of us who pay attention be surprised? This mirrors how Ronnie "I don't swear and I love everyone who has AIDS" Reagan and the first Bush liar saw Saddam/Iraq, when they were providing them with what the second Bush liar would later refer to as "weapons of mass destruction" - AND - provided them even after they knew he/they had used them, dropping them from American made helicopters. But today in George W. Bush's America, no-one in the administration and scant few in the "liberal media" (filthy conservatives favorite lie) care to revisit the good old GOP days.

And so what happens today? A member of this administration comes right out and ADMITS the administration lied... and that the Iraq war has NOT made us safer from terror. Oh yeah. Perhaps you caught the admission? It came from Homeland Security's own Tom Ridge. Mind you, he didn't use those exact words. No, instead he raised the moronic, color coded, terror warning alert, using words like "threat indicators are perhaps greater now than at any point since Sept. 11"... and "extremists abroad are anticipating attacks that will rival or exceed the scope of those of Sept. 11". To those of us who have and continue to pay attention, there is no difference. A rose by any other name. Obviously, the invasion of Iraq has not made us safer from terrorism, therefore, Bush lied and our soldiers died. Period.

And what is the response from the American people who once again have had it thrown in their faces that this administration doesn't give one good G-- Damn about their safety and have lied them into a war in the name of corporate cronyism by selling it as a necessary step in the war on terror and an excursion that will make them safer, only now to admit now that we are not safer? Where is the outrage, well deserved, appropriate and critically necessary?

If the American people are not marching on Washington DC as I write this column, we have once again proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the depths of ignorance to which we have sunk. This country, George W. Bush's America, is being consumed by the same type and magnitude of ignorance being exhibited by a leadership that is the very personification and glorification of ignorance.

So let's recap, particularly for those mindless, conservative minions who continue to swallow this administration's offerings without even tasting, let alone chewing. over 450 American soldiers dead; thousands of innocent Iraqis dead; new reports of upwards of 11,000 wounded U.S. soldiers and medical evacuations from Iraq; troops suicide rate alarmingly high, even for wartime; oil wells given the "protect first" priority; Cheneyburton overcharging the American taxpayers and yet still serving our soldiers dirty food from even dirtier preparing facilities; reports of soldiers not being paid for weeks and being refused medical care; UPI's Mark Benjamin's illuminating articles on how poorly returning soldiers are being treated at Fort Stewart and Fort Knox; soldiers not being properly equipped and families having to purchase equipment here in America and ship it overseas; Bush banning the media from covering dead soldiers return to the country they died serving (apparently, funerals don't meet the "free speech zone" requirement); Bush's refusal to attend even one of their funerals; his "form letters" of condolence to the dead soldiers families; the story of the seventeen 1991 Gulf War POW's who were tortured in Iraq, and eventually won a settlement against the government of Saddam Hussein - Bush trying to overturn their settlement, claiming he needs the money to rebuild Iraq. and all this for what? FOR WHAT?!

A raised terror alert? And the possibility of attacks "perhaps greater now than at any point since Sept. 11 that will rival or exceed the scope of those of Sept. 11"? For this?! Can there be any doubt (save sycophantic, boot licking Bush apologists) among rational thinkers how much we've been lied to and deceived over this Iraqmire debacle?

And what do you want to bet the "liberal media" - instead of holding George W. Bush accountable for his "the war with Iraq has made American safer from terrorism" lie, will not even verbalize the connection between that lie and the raised terror alert? The same "liberal media" who beat the Iraqi war drum for months leading up to its inception; the same "liberal media" who gave us a 2-3 day Saddamathon following his capture without ever once stating that Saddam's capture in no way changed the fact that Bush lied and our soldiers died. Yes, that "liberal media."

Color me cynical, but quite frankly? I wouldn't be surprised if der Bushler got a bump in approval ratings after this latest terror alert raising. Why? Because he's doing so much to "protect der homeland." Welcome to George W. Bush's America. Sickening. Welcome to GOP Nation. Sick.

You have an opportunity to throw these filthy, lying, dangerous usurpers out into the streets on their worthless asses in 2004. For the sake of your nation and what it used to be and still can be... I suggest you do just that - while you still can.



Doug Basham
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.
suomi.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
There's a t-shirt slogan in there.

-Bush lied and our soldiers died-
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
3,738
Tokens
here's a t-shirt for you -- " i'm with stupid" with an arrow pointing up.

lol

first Iraq, then France
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,991
Tokens
i don`t know if it`s made us safer from terrorism...but,i think it just might have made the world a little safer from a global catastrophe....

i posted this almost a year ago...i think it still has merit...


i made the point in another thread...."like israel or not,they are a democracy and our biggest ally in the region.....

strangely enough,the u.s. stands by it`s allies(how very un-french of us).....

israel does have nuclear weapons....they have not used them,even though gravely provoked....

saddam hussein is on record as saying,"my biggest mistake was not having nuclear weapons when going into kuwait"...if he`d had nukes when he invaded kuwait,he`d probably still have kuwait....

..if you are fair and objective,you understand that if the israeli`s hadn`t taken out that french built iraqi nuclear reactor in the 80`s,there would have been nuclear weapons thudding into israel,not poorly guided scuds(saddam was certainly trying hard in the 80`s to obtain nuclear weapons)............and as i said,about 3 hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs would pretty much annihilate a small country like israel....

make no mistake....a big part of our decision to take saddam out,is rooted in the continued existence of israel..and even more so the stability of the middle east....

LET ME SAY AGAIN,THE STABILITY OF THE MIDDLE EAST......AND THE OIL SUPPLy...YES,THE OIL SUPPLY....THE LIFE`S BLOOD OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION....AND THE WORLD`S ECONOMIC WELL BEING....


these issues were seen as being jeopardized by the one dictator in the middle east crazy and ballsy enough to try and annihilate israel and throw the middle east and much of the world into an all out conflagration... ..the one willing to murder his own people and invade his neighbors...

the world is becoming rife with black market nuclear processing material and some say,actual nuclear weapons(the soviet union cannot account for all of their cold war weapons)....

n. korea has already been caught secretly shipping missiles to terrorist nation yemen on unmarked vessels....fortunately,china is now putting the economic clamps on n. korea as we speak....you haven`t heard much from n.korea lately....that`s because china isn`t ready to have this tin pot dictator sh-tting all over their backyard....this,and the fact that n. korea ALREADY HAS.....I REPEAT,ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons is why we did not address the n. korean situation first...they pose no threat to the world`s oil supply and economic well being....and we have assistance from china,in keeping them in line....but they DO have nuclear weapons....that effectively ties the hands of any country trying to deal with them....unless we are willing to see s.korea and/or japan go up in a puff of smoke...



if saddam`s reactor hadn`t been taken out prior to the gulf war,israel would most definitely have been hit with nuclear weapons.....thus,bringing retaliatory strikes with nuclear weapons from israel....thus opening the middle east up to a full scale arab vs israeli conflict,fecking up half the world`s oil supply,and possibly creating a global catastrophe.......which would be harder on our society than any other.... which would cause our economy to grind to a halt....our way of life to be inexorably changed....


i`m not a big proponent of the war...but for all those that cry,"no war for oil",well,they are either stone cold stupid or totally uninformed....their may not be a better reason to get rid of a dangerous dictator than to secure the world`s energy supply....

if you can`t assuredly get the knife away from jack the ripper,then you must get rid of jack....


it`s not hard to understand why we are doing what we are doing....i don`t like it....but i understand it......saddam has proven he`s willing to do what your average despot will not do.......

and strangely enough,if he didn`t have weapons(chemical,biological or nuclear),he felt it was in his best interest to play the bluff and make us and his neighbors think he was more powerful than he really was....if he was shown to be much weaker than anticipated,he loses a certain amount of credibility....

he could have thrown open the doors and come totally clean....he chose not to...

as it turns out,the bluff didn`t work....

he gambled....and he lost....hopefully in the near future,it will be to the benefit of the iraqi people....

wilheim...not a shot,just a counterpoint ...trying to give a suppositional explanation that ,maybe, is a little to politically sensitive to be presented as public policy....

g.l.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
Since the end of conflict in Iraq war, this is indisputable:

Irai Shiites are safer from Iraqi Sunni Muslims than when Saddam as ruling Sunni was in power.

Is America safer? I answer "No."

How many Anericans were killed or wounded by Iraqis after first Gulf War ended in 1991 until Bush admin initiated war? Answer: Zero.

How many Americans have been killed by Iraqis since Iraq hostitlities?

Answer: Over 500, with thousands more wounded. And unfortunately, many more to come ( i take no delight in this prediction but it will be proved over time).

Since Colin Powell has gone on record and says there was no ties from saddam regime to al queda

and

since David Kay has gone on record saying there were no WMD...

basically we spent all these casualties (and will continue to suffer more) and it made us no safer.

I was all for the strikes against Afghanistan, as there were clear links from al queda, taliban and osama.

Can't say the same about Iraq.
icon_frown.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,991
Tokens
no offense,but i think you missed my point...

although,i understand that wil framed the post with the"does getting rid of saddam make us safer from terrorism" argument....and with that,i guess i agree...

but,is our way of life,out quality of life,our economic security more stable?...is the middle east a little more secure from another potential catastrophe like the guld war?..or something worse?...are the other dictators(like khadafi, who appears to be rolling over)a little more leery to thumb their nose at the rest of the world?....we are now sending an envoy to iran for the first time in forever....

i`d say so....

not disagreeing on the terrorist point...just saying that wil`s supposition was framed very narrowly....there is so much more involved than just terrorism....


g.l.,guys...
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
844
Tokens
Iraq war 'increased terror threat'
BBC NEWS


Failure to find WMD has reduced coalition's 'credibility'
Britons are more - not less - likely to be the target of terrorist attacks as a result of the war in Iraq, an influential group of MPs claims.
The Foreign Affairs Committee says British interests are under threat in the short term because of the conflict.

It also claims a failure to find weapons of mass destruction has "damaged the credibility" of the US and UK's war against terrorism.

There was a "crisis of confidence" in the security services, one MP said.

Consequences

The committee, tasked with looking into the foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism, took evidence from a range of experts and politicians, including Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

There is clearly a crisis in confidence now ... about the competence of our security services and the analysis which is given to raw intelligence

Andrew Mackinlay

It welcomed the capture of Saddam Hussein following last year's war.

But it argued: "The continued failure of the coalition to find WMD in Iraq has damaged the credibility of the US and UK in their conduct of the war against terrorism."

Labour committee member Andrew Mackinlay told a press launch of the report: "There is clearly a crisis in confidence now ... about the competence of our security services and the analysis which is given to raw intelligence.

"Behind everybody's minds is whether or not there has been or could be disproportionate status given to some intelligence, particularly single source intelligence."

'Scepticism'

Mr Mackinlay, said an independent inquiry "could not be avoided" and insisted many people were concerned "about our failure to find WMD".

He said it was a "great deficiency in our democratic process" that there was no parliamentary oversight of the security and intelligence services in the UK.

Tory member Sir John Stanley said there would be a "much greater level of scepticism" about intelligence that suggested there was a further threat from WMD as it now seemed "improbable" any would be found.

The MPs also outlined their concern that "that the war in Iraq has possibly made terrorist attacks against British nationals and British interests more likely in the short term".

Regret

While a successful handover of power to the Iraqis would lessen the terrorist threat, they warned against any scaling back of coalition forces until the Iraqis were able to ensure security themselves.

The Iraq operation has demonstrated once again the importance of security for the success of post-conflict peace operations

Foreign Affairs Committee

The MPs said those who had predicted destabilisation and the growth of extremism in the Middle East following the war "have not been proved correct".

They expressed "regret" over the refusal of other major powers such as France, Russia and Germany - all opponents of the war - to send forces to help stabilise the situation.

Both British and American governments were to blame for their "insufficient anticipation" of the scale of the security problems they faced in Iraq after the war, the MPs said.

'Scale down troops'

They claim it was "unfortunate and regrettable" that a lack of law and order, and interruptions in essential services, "had resulted in a loss of goodwill among those worst affected", although important progress was being made.

The MPs urged the UK and its partners to "scale down their armed forces" in Iraq, but conceded that British troops and civilians were likely to be needed to stay in the region "for sometime to come, possibly for several years".

The report comes as Tony Blair is under increasing pressure to instigate an independent inquiry into the quality of information used to justify Britain's role in the Iraq war.

Downing Street said it would "shortly" say how it plans to address the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sphincter:
...there is so much more involved than just terrorism...


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ousting Saddam never had anything to do with terrorism. There has never been any link between Saddam and any terrorist organisation (although one was known to operate in Northern Iraq until roughly 2002.) However, it's 'quite likely' that the anti-American sentiment that pervades the Middle East will have risen exponentially because of this war (made worse by the lack of WMDs found) and have served as free advertising for terrorist organisations founded on anti-Western principles.

The problem is likely to get alot worse before it gets better.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,814
Messages
13,573,562
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
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