Full Version: Will War Happen Since Republicans Won the Senate?
DO u think President Bush will push for war now since Congress is ran by the Republican party. Please me your opinion?
War would have went on whether republicans took over the nation or not. I mean they did just take over the nation did'nt they? Bush knows something that the American people don't know. There is a big threat in Iraq, he's afraid. It will be easier for him to live with his decision now that he has a house full of re-puppet-cans...I mean republicans. He has the support that he needed to push forward. So I do think war is on a brink.
QUOTE(iwcrteran @ Nov 8 2002, 01:41 AM)
War would have went on whether republicans took over the nation or not. I mean they did just take over the nation did'nt they? Bush knows something that the American people don't know. There is a big threat in Iraq, he's afraid. It will be easier for him to live with his decision now that he has a house full of re-puppet-cans...I mean republicans. He has the support that he needed to push forward. So I do think war is on a brink.
No, the Republicans did not take over the nation and he does not have a house full of re-puppit-cans. How cynical!
There most likely will be war and as someone else said probably with or without the recent election results. It took co-operation with the Democrats for this to happen.
Republicans do not "control the nation" They do not have control enough that they don't need the Democrats. If you think this you are fooling yourself.
Let's hope they can work together for a better America
War is imminet. I know that he will declare war and as a republican I knw we are on our way. Like a couple months ago president bush got the approve to launch an attack on Iraq.
Hey Folks,
Listen...The ball is in Saddam Husseins court, if he complys with the weapons inspections and disarms, there will be no war. However, if the Iraqi government lies, covers up or hides, it weapons of mass destruction then the WORLD will have no choice but to disarm him. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration ALREADY knows the answer to whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ( In violation of the original UN Resolution after the Persian Gulf War). Otherwise the inspectors would have been unnecessary.
The Iraqi military fires on US and British aircraft patroling the no-fly zones in the North and South areas in Iraq to protect the Kurds and Shiets who opposed Saddam in the gulf war. This is ALREADY in violation of the Security Council Resolution, but Kofi Annan (The UN Secretary General) states that this is not a violation. Let me tell you something folks, Iraq could BLOW UP the UN Building and Mr. Annan would say there is no direct violation.
There are those who hide their heads in the sand and PRETEND that Iraq has no connections to TERRORISM, but that is just not true. There is more than enough evidence to point to Iraq's involvement with TERRORISM both directly and indirectly.
No one WANTS WAR, but we cannot fall asleep again, or hide our heads in the sand as we did during the past adminstration, seriously deminishing our military's capacity to defend our nation and sending a message that we will do nothing if attacked, no matter where we are in the world.
Thanks for your Time
JR
Talk Show America
Listen...The ball is in Saddam Husseins court, if he complys with the weapons inspections and disarms, there will be no war. However, if the Iraqi government lies, covers up or hides, it weapons of mass destruction then the WORLD will have no choice but to disarm him. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration ALREADY knows the answer to whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ( In violation of the original UN Resolution after the Persian Gulf War). Otherwise the inspectors would have been unnecessary.
The Iraqi military fires on US and British aircraft patroling the no-fly zones in the North and South areas in Iraq to protect the Kurds and Shiets who opposed Saddam in the gulf war. This is ALREADY in violation of the Security Council Resolution, but Kofi Annan (The UN Secretary General) states that this is not a violation. Let me tell you something folks, Iraq could BLOW UP the UN Building and Mr. Annan would say there is no direct violation.
There are those who hide their heads in the sand and PRETEND that Iraq has no connections to TERRORISM, but that is just not true. There is more than enough evidence to point to Iraq's involvement with TERRORISM both directly and indirectly.
No one WANTS WAR, but we cannot fall asleep again, or hide our heads in the sand as we did during the past adminstration, seriously deminishing our military's capacity to defend our nation and sending a message that we will do nothing if attacked, no matter where we are in the world.
Thanks for your Time
JR
Talk Show America
Depends on how good saddam is at hiding things... I think bush is frustrated by saddams latest move.
Democrats would have supported war anyway. Americans still want more islamic blood, no party will stand in the way of that kind of simmering anger.
Democrats would have supported war anyway. Americans still want more islamic blood, no party will stand in the way of that kind of simmering anger.
As far as "the last administration" being the only one to look the other way on terror attacks, hehe, thats been the way it is for 25 years. Clinton threw some tomahawks, Reagan threw some bombs, both for one day. Each endured several attacks. Bush sr didnt retaliate for Pan Am 103, Reagan did nothing after Beirut. We pursued and tried the libyan intelligence agents responsible for Pan Am 103, never bombed them.
Terrorism has NEVER been a high priority, didnt start with clinton. Terrorism against the US does predate 1992 ya know...
Terrorism has NEVER been a high priority, didnt start with clinton. Terrorism against the US does predate 1992 ya know...
War was bound to happen if he would of the the office or not. And the senators granted him ear before anything has ever happened and before the inspections
Well, it's hard to say.
For me, personally, i would want war. but most dems say that war aint good, give love, yadda yadda yadda. Why didnt they say that when clinton attack iraq? hmmm.... i dont wana criticize dems for being hypocrites....
Dems hate bush and i dont think they would really let them. Republicans would probably lose votes, but that's only my opinion.
L. Zeved
For me, personally, i would want war. but most dems say that war aint good, give love, yadda yadda yadda. Why didnt they say that when clinton attack iraq? hmmm.... i dont wana criticize dems for being hypocrites....
Dems hate bush and i dont think they would really let them. Republicans would probably lose votes, but that's only my opinion.
L. Zeved
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.