Delete: Duplicate

“everyone else” as in North Korea”, Iran? Who are you talking about and what has this to do with the war in Iraq. Tell me by name which countries, after 1998 did squat to get Saddam to account for the WMD? Or to comply with any UN resolution our men died in Gulf I for.

I won’t hold my breath.

So are you now with Obama who says we will invade Paristan is we know there are terrorists there? This is something that Bush, Cheney and Rummy would not do but I bet you are ok with it.

I'm glad, because that would be silly.

I guess you've never heard of this little conflict known as the Gulf War. That was when a coalition force from 35 nations, authorized by the United Nations, and led by the United States drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

From Wikipedia

Members of the Coalition included Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Germany and Japan provided financial assistance and donated military hardware instead of direct military assistance, which was later to be known as a "checkbook diplomacy". United States asked Israel not to participate in the war despite missile strikes on Israeli citizens. India extended military support to the United States in the form of refueling facilities situated in the Arabian Sea.

How is that for a definition of "everyone else?" Is that satisfactory?



Obama never said he would invade Pakistan. Care to supply the quote where he supposedly does? Good luck, and remember, this is for the Amana Radarange.

Senator Obama stated, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." This shows that he would be willing to talk to the Musharraf government first, but not rule out other options. I know that it's been so long since we've seen our government actually find and use "actionable intelligence" that it may be difficult to recognize. But I firmly believe that if we take any option off of the table, such as military operations or otherwise, we needlessly tie our own hands.

Remember when Bush said that was his plan, and how Bush has never done anything like that? Remember that? I do.

Yes a wonderful ½ victory that left a madman in power who subsequently slaughteres over 100,000 Shiites while the UN did nothing – and left in power a man who never complied with a single UN resolution which lead to the current conflict.

Wonderful.




Thanks for making my point – that is exactly what the dope said. We will go into an ally country to get “high value” whoever without their permission. Now what exactly would you call that sir. Pakistan has told us they will not allow this and it will only undermine the current government that is supporting us. If the Mullahs take over we WILL have to fight the whole damn country.

So Obama, trying to sound tough, made a very stupid comment.

If Busah had said this what woiuld you and the liberal press have said - screeming I am sure.

Oh please.

Bush and all his "bring it on" cowboy bravado? I have never "screamed" about his insanely stupid comments, and the media isn't liberal. So I don't know what you're talking about there.

Obama was not talking about mounting an invasion, and although he could've worded it better, what he said was no different than what the Bush administration said shortly after 911. No country is going to get away with harboring Al Qaeda.

As to any failures of how the Gulf War was ultimately resolved, that rests in the decisions made by Bush Sr at that time. You can complain about the results, but the way it was done, through the cooperation of 35 nations is EXACTLY how the "war on terror" should be fought.

The "go it alone" concept of foreign policy is idiotic.

And I really don't see how I "made your point." Your point appeared to be that the only countries we alienated with our invasion were Iran and North Korea.

I actually disproved that point, and put it to bed.

Ya right. The UN mandated the end of Gulf I in the resolution and the “committee” with varying priorities gave us the ludicrous events that followed 1991-1998. Do you remember? Inspectors getting no cooperation, and then getting booted in 1998 – and what did the UN do then??? Squat in fact in 1999 France petitions to drop all sanctions so they can get oil contracts – meanwhile Iraq corrupts the UN and oil for food program.

So please give me a break. To blame bush for NK nukes (which Clinton gave him by sheer incompetence) , is so stupid it is not worth discussing. And when did we get along with Iran - Clintoin era?? Tell me please. I know we should not “alienate” them by suggesting that their support of terrorist all over the ME and pursuit of nukes is not a great idea – in fact last time I checked most of the world feels the same way.

If anyone is a cowboy it is Obama and his stupid statement.

And anytime you want to turn the defense of this country over to UN decisions I and many other will not agree.

Who are you addressing? It can't possibly be me.

Show me where I

1. Blamed Bush for North Korea nukes
2. Said I want to turn the defense of this country over to UN decisions
3. Said we shouldn't alienate North Korea

Then we might be able to have a discussion. I won't even dispute your statement that "if anybody is a cowboy it is Obama" who currently is not president, and would take a long time to catch up to Bush in that area.

I'm going to assume you are through debating the fact that Bush Sr. formed a coalition of 35 countries to fight the Gulf War, and that Bush Jr. had the momentum to do something similar after 911, and instead chose a unilateral approach that included invading a nation that had nothing to do with the attack.

You have conceded that point, haven't you?

But it wasn't unilateral. I mean the UK alone made it at least bilateral... You add Austraila, Poland... Well you get the idea. Now a debatable point is whether Iraq had anything to do with the WoT (not 9/11).

Invading Iraq as "anything to do with the War on Terror" is a tricky issue. Here's why:

1. Iraq, at the time of invasion, was not a major training ground for Al Qaeda. In fact, it appears the only Al Qaeda activity in Iraq was most likely in the north, where the Kurds are located, and wasn't being "tolerated" by Saddam

2. Saddam did in fact have something to do with terrorists, but they were not Al Qaeda terrorists, and how much involvement is pretty sketchy. What we do know is that there are a lot higher priority targets than Iraq as far as Bush's "training and harboring terrorists" provision

3. Iraq became a larger part of the War on Terror AFTER the invasion, when Al Qaeda came streaming in there like water through a screen door. So I quickly weary of discussions of Iraq as part of the "War on Terror"

Well I didn't really ask what you answered but in that you seem to want to know why we're in Iraq.

Iraq is the dead center of the "hot" Middle East. The USA and the world already had a problem with Iraq and let's face it Saddam Hussein was actually a bad guy. It was an acceptable war. Even to the Germans and French who put of something of a fight so the world wouldn't find out their complicity with Iraq. In the end it was difficult to argue. So for the US to invade and place 140,000 troops in the dead center of the "hot" Middle East makes a lot of sense from a strategic standpoint. In a lot of ways it says to places like Dubai, This could hapen to you. Now the planning on what to do after Iraq fell, well let's face that hasn't really been all that well thought out.

The truth of the matter is that even if radical Islam represents only 10% of the religion that's a whole lot of people. Something needs to be done before this turns into the Last Crusade. This isn't guys on horses anymore. This is countries with nukes. This is world wide, not some strip of disputed sand. History might remember GWB as the Ptresident who almost stopped the Crusades. When you hear War On Terror you really need to replace it with War on Radical Islam.