Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 5/24/2002 9:38:57 AM EDT
According to this article [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1822-2002May23.html[/url], some in the JCS don't want to attack Iraq. Since September, I've been of the understanding that the U.S. war on terrorism would go in something like this order: Aghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and then maybe North Korea. Now it seems as though we may not even go beyond Afghanistan. If the destruction of the WTC is not cause for war, what is? I mean, it was [b]by far[/b] the worst attack ever on U.S. soil. At this point, I'm wondering if we would even seriously respond if one of our cities were nuked. I guess you could say that I'm as much shocked as I am furious. -kill-9
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:45:39 AM EDT
Some in the JCS didn't want to attack Iraq in 1990. It doesn't matter what they want, however, it matters what they are told to do.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:48:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:53:24 AM EDT
I just ran across a brief commentary called, "Is Bush Surrendering?", on [url]http://www.andrewsullivan.com[/url] that pretty much sums up how I feel about it. A quote: "[Bush's] military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration. After all that this president has said, after all that he has asked, a reversal on this central question would be nothing short of a staggering betrayal of trust, a reversal of will and determination." -kill-9
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:59:14 AM EDT
I'm baffled. The only explanation I can think of is that the anti-war peaceknick liberals have infected this country to the core, to the point where even a supposedly conservative Republican administration doesn't want to go to total war. Look, as soon as 9/11 happened, we should have declared war on Iraq, Iran and Syria, mobilized the entire nation to conquer, occupy, pacify, and democratize those 3 countries. The fact that we appear to be "waffling" over Iraq is an outrage to me. Every day I think about what happened to my country on 9/11 and it makes me sad of course for all of my fellow Americans but more than ever it makes me ANGRY at our enemy. Our enemy, the entire Muslim world in general. Our enemy, the "extremist" Islam, which is actually just a PC notion. All of Islam is generally extremist. They all hate our guts, they hate what we stand for. They hate Western Civilization in general. Make no mistake, this is a gigantic clash between two civilizations, the primitive Muslim world versus modern Western Civilization. There can only be one path to peace in the future, and that is victory achieved through forcing OUR will onto our enemies, by using power and strength. Anyway, one too many cups of coffee today :)
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:04:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ump45: I'm baffled. The only explanation I can think of is that the anti-war peaceknick liberals have infected this country to the core, to the point where even a supposedly conservative Republican administration doesn't want to go to total war. Look, as soon as 9/11 happened, we should have declared war on Iraq, Iran and Syria, mobilized the entire nation to conquer, occupy, pacify, and democratize those 3 countries. The fact that we appear to be "waffling" over Iraq is an outrage to me. Every day I think about what happened to my country on 9/11 and it makes me sad of course for all of my fellow Americans but more than ever it makes me ANGRY at our enemy. Our enemy, the entire Muslim world in general. Our enemy, the "extremist" Islam, which is actually just a PC notion. All of Islam is generally extremist. They all hate our guts, they hate what we stand for. They hate Western Civilization in general. Make no mistake, this is a gigantic clash between two civilizations, the primitive Muslim world versus modern Western Civilization. There can only be one path to peace in the future, and that is victory achieved through forcing OUR will onto our enemies, by using power and strength. Anyway, one too many cups of coffee today :)
View Quote
You should have "too many cups of coffee" everyday, because you are [b]exactly[/b] right. And that's precisely why this news is so very distressing. -kill-9
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:07:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001:
They all hate our guts, they hate what we stand for. They hate Western Civilization in general. Make no mistake, this is a gigantic clash between two civilizations, the primitive Muslim world versus modern Western Civilization. There can only be one path to peace in the future, and that is victory achieved through forcing OUR will onto our enemies, by using power and strength.
View Quote
So given that Bush has stated this himself, what does that suggest to you?? Keep the Faith Guys. Its commin. Ben
View Quote
Ben, your faith in Bush is commendable, but never underestimate the willingness of a politician to reverse course on a dime if he thinks it will help him politically. I, too, would like to think that Bush acts on principle, but the Farm Bill, steel tarrifs, and his general willingness to support traditionally liberal issues sadly betray that notion. -kill-9
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:28:47 AM EDT
I wish Bush & Rumsfeld (? sp) could do what we all know they want to do... there are many members of our government screwing this up (not to mention, IMO, some in the military (commanders)).
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:33:38 AM EDT
The only thing that I worry about is Bush traveling to Italy. That one worries me. That will be in the next few days. Ben
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:37:18 AM EDT
I am hoping that this is bluff....also we need to do some military revamping......if it is true then Bush is pansy
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:37:54 AM EDT
There has been a recent article in National Review that might be of interest to some of you.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:42:42 AM EDT
WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - American warplanes destroyed two Iraqi air defense targets in Iarq's southern "no-fly" zone on Thursday in the second such raid this week after Western jets were fired on, the U.S. military said. The U.S. Central Command based in Tampa, Florida, said the jets dropped precision-guided weapons on an anti-aircraft missile system and a missile control center in southern Iraq at approximately 1:15 a.m. Thursday Iraq time (2115 GMT on Wednesday). All aircraft departed the target areas safely, Central Command said. It was the second time this week that U.S. fighters struck targets in the zone in the latest of a long series of tit-for-tat exchanges in northern and southern no-fly zones of Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. The strikes came as Iraq and the United Nations continued discussions over the possible return of U.N. weapons inspectors to that country. But speculation has grown in recent months about possible U.S. plans for a future military invasion of Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from power. Washington says Saddam is actively trying to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Senior U.S. defense officials have said privately that such an attack could take as many as 500,000 U.S. troops and hundreds of warplanes, and have hinted that any such move is not imminent while Washington is concentrating on the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Russia and a number of America's Western allies have cautioned against such a move. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the Central Command and responsible for U.S. military activities in the Gulf and Middle East region, told reporters this week that he had received no orders to draw up a plan to depose Saddam. NO FIRM PLANS FOR U.S. ATTACK President George W. Bush reiterated on Tuesday that the United States had no firm plans to attack Iraq but said he would inform European leaders during a visit this week of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. "I have no military plans on my desk but I'm looking at all options, closely with our allies... it's a danger we need to take seriously and we better take it seriously now," Bush said in a translated interview with German television. Iraq said on Monday that four people were wounded when U.S. warplanes attacked civilian targets that day. But Washington said it had launched a raid against a military air-defense target in the south after a missile was apparently fired at U.S. and British jets policing the southern zone. "Aggression by Iraq led to the destruction of two military targets by the coalition forces charged with enforcing the southern no-fly zone," the Central Command said of Thursday's strikes. The release said the attempt to shoot down coalition aircraft was made shortly before midnight on Wednesday in Iraq and that U.S. warplanes two hours later struck two pre-determined targets to weaken Iraqi air defenses in the southern zone.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:43:22 AM EDT
Continued
They were an anti-aircraft missile site near Nasiriyah, about 170 miles 273 kms southeast of Baghdad, and a military aircraft and missile control center near Tallil, 170 miles 273 kms south-southeast of the capital. "Coalition aircraft struck carefully pre-planned targets to neutralize hostile threats endangering our aircrews," the Central Command statement said. It said that the missile system had been moved into the no-fly zone in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and was threatening the jets. U.S. and British jets have been patrolling northern and southern no-fly zones set up after the Gulf War to protect Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims from attack by Saddam's military. Baghdad has refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq since they pulled out in December 1998, but is currently discussing with the United Nations the issue of opening the door again to those inspectors.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:45:33 AM EDT
I'd like to go on record as predicting Saddam's downfall within the next 9 months. Rea-dyyyyy....Go!
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:45:53 AM EDT
"I have no military plans on my desk but I'm looking at all options, closely with our allies... it's a danger we need to take seriously and we better take it seriously now,"
View Quote
Like I always say, "Parse it if you have to." Ben
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:06:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I'm with you. It looks like Bush is pussing out.
View Quote
Looks can be deceiving. I still say we attack Iraq this winter.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:20:01 AM EDT
Has anybody heard anything about pre-positioning of equipment? Stockpiling of weapons and fuel, or any of the other usual precursors to a major operation?
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:45:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Poodleshooter: Has anybody heard anything about pre-positioning of equipment? Stockpiling of weapons and fuel, or any of the other usual precursors to a major operation?
View Quote
Nothing yet. The military has already stated that they would need approximately one year to stage and prepare for an invasion of Iraq. The best indicator is always going to be monitoring the callups of Reservists. When call-ups start coming fast and furious, that's when we go for Iraq.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 11:59:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2002 12:00:34 PM EDT by sniped]
Bush is not a puss, I think its a great plan, let them think were not going to evade. Remember each action we take is well calculated execution of the objective. The report is a smoke screen. In addition the last thing we want to do is jeopardize the lives of our military forces based on the way we feel about 911. My feelings, hmmmm smoke them! Be patient good men, the time will come [-=(_)=-]
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 12:03:32 PM EDT
No Attack planned. (wink, wink) [;)]
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 12:11:28 PM EDT
Without a buildup and pre-positioning of supplies and personnel there will be no ground attack. Thinking otherwise is a dream. Bush is either being a pussy, is outmatched [yea right], or has some covert method to remove Saddam from power. Generals who don't want to fight - WTF.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 12:17:25 PM EDT
I'll have to admit, I would certainly hate to be making plans for a serious military strike against Iraq, with all these idiots in the Press snooping about! So much for patriotism! Ernie Pyle is probably doing about 1,000 RPM in his grave. I'm all in favor of the Press doing its job, but as the recent aborted foray into Gaza by the Israelis shows, when the Press is signaling your intentions on CNN, it just doesn't make sense! Remember the scenes of US troops coming ashore in Somalia back in 1992. Cameras, flood lights, numerous media types running around the beach. If that Warlord Adid had his ca-ca together, he could surely have planned a little welcoming party for that evening. Thanks to the Press. All you have to do is read articles such as this, to let you know how those gallant defenders of the 1st Amendment really feel about the 'rest of the country' - [url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah110501.asp[/url] Here's another great little quote, this time from Tom 'Let's Hear It For America's Greatest Generation' (Available at amazon.com) Brokaw: [b]"I don't think a journalist ought to be wearing a flag, because it does seem to be, to me at least, a sign of solidarity toward whatever the government is doing, and that is not our role."[/b] Tell that to Ernie Pyle, Tom, tell it to Ernie Pyle, who was proudly wearing a Marine uniform when he was killed while reporting from the South Pacific. Eric The(IGuessHeSomehowFelt'Solidarity'WithWhatHi­sGovernmentWasDoing!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 12:31:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2002 12:34:29 PM EDT by imposter]
Let us hope all of this is a smokescreen, and that our enemies believe it. I bet you will see action right before the election. Bush II is not going to let the electorate forget about his war.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 1:25:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2002 1:28:14 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
I bet you will see action right before the election. Bush II is not going to let the electorate forget about his war
View Quote
I might be taking this wrongly, but?? [size=2]HIS WAR?????[/size=2] [img]http://www.returntothepit.com/pics/wtc-pics/1041327.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.returntothepit.com/pics/wtc-pics/1041331.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.returntothepit.com/pics/wtc-pics/11CND-CRASH_lapse_sm.jpg[/img] [size=2]I BEG TO DIFFER SIR!![/size=2] Ben
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 2:08:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 2:43:33 PM EDT
The United States policy of 'Israel First' has cost us the support of the EU and the Muslim states. I know of not one country that will back our incursion into Iraq. No allies = no invasion. Besides, the greater threat is Iran.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 2:52:16 PM EDT
Of course they are going to tell us that there are no plans of invasion! However, if we invade we are going to need Israelis assistance if we like it or not. Also, once we take Iraq, what are we going to do with it. You are going to need an occupying army, and if you just leave peacekeepers to hold the fort, Iran will roll right over those peacekeepers. Then there is the issue with Iran...............the drama never ends.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 2:57:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BARBAROSA: However, if we invade we are going to need Israelis assistance if we like it or not.
View Quote
I cannot imagine a scenario where help from Israel would be either needed or accepted. 'Help' from Israel to attack a Muslim (and Arab) country ?? No, no, I don't think so.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 3:08:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2002 3:08:56 PM EDT by ChrisLe]
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: However, if we invade we are going to need Israelis assistance if we like it or not.
View Quote
No. You're absolutely incorrect on this one. Enlisting Israel's help in defeating a Muslim nation will do nothing more than turn every other Muslim nation against us. Remember that Israel is the sworn enemy of the Muslim States. During the Gulf War we bent over backwards to appease the Israelis so that they WOULDN'T enter the Gulf War. We diverted valuable resources and personell from the war effort to 'protect' Israel from Scud missiles, all in an effort to keep Israel from entering the conflict. Had they entered the conflict the Arab states in the coalition would have, at the very least, withdrawn if not outright turned against us. We need the assistance of the moderate Arab states (Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, etc) much more than we will ever need Israels's help.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 3:34:16 PM EDT
I can not imagine we need ANY moslem nation's help to attack the rest of them. They al hate us and we will surely eventually go to war with all of them. I vote for NOW. Either this report is a smoke screen or the traitors like Colon Powell have won and we are lost. Just that simple!
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 3:47:03 PM EDT
The U.S. has no way to bring in 10s of thousands of troops into Iraq. Even an airfield seizure isn't feasible. Why do you think we dragged our heals when Israel put the screws to the Palestinians? A ground assault will have to come from the west of Iraq. We will have to dock in Israel to get organized and deploy armor and troops. This is just the way I see it.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 4:07:00 PM EDT
I would not look forward to the possible enviornmental effects of a nuclear war. That being said I feel that will be the direction this takes eventually - just as soon as the moslems get one. I am amazed that Pakistan has not used theirs. The longer we wait to crush the moslems/Arabs the more nukes they can deliver to US soil. That is why I think the first one should have been use 9/12. Now is still the time. A predetermined list of the order of destruction of the moslem world should be made public. Next terror attack in US or Israel and they will know which country we are going to obliterate. Then DO it! The bastards are right about one thing; we ARE weak. Our lack of response to their outrageous acts proves it. If we are no longer wlling to conduct unlimited war, then we have already lost. We should pick an appropriate moslem target and give them 24hrs to unconditionally surrender. Upon their failure to do so, nuke them. Move on to the next enemy country and make the same offer. Continue until moslem problem is solved either through surrender or total destruction of 1.2 billion of the enemy.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 7:08:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kill-9: I've been of the understanding that the U.S. war on terrorism would go in something like this order: Aghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and then maybe North Korea. Now it seems as though we may not even go beyond Afghanistan. At this point, I'm wondering if we would even seriously respond if one of our cities were nuked. -kill-9
View Quote
We're not going to even finish the job in Afganistan. This is why I am so certain we WILL get nuked. As I, and others, said from the beginning--We don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 9:00:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BARBAROSA: The U.S. has no way to bring in 10s of thousands of troops into Iraq. Even an airfield seizure isn't feasible. Why do you think we dragged our heals when Israel put the screws to the Palestinians? A ground assault will have to come from the west of Iraq. We will have to dock in Israel to get organized and deploy armor and troops. This is just the way I see it.
View Quote
You *are* aware that Israel does not border Iraq? How exactly will we get our forces to Iraq then? We'd have to go through Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Syria - preferably all three, but they are all very unlikely to support it. Jordan supported Saddam Hussein during the Gulf "War", Saudi Arabia supports terrorists and have point blank said they wouldn't support Iraq. Syria? Forget it. Of course we could always attack from Afghanistan through Iran and take out two birds with one stone...
Link Posted: 5/24/2002 10:57:48 PM EDT
anybody ever hear of the doomsday plan? it was a coldwar plan that stated that if an enemy attacked with nuclear weapons then not only that enemy but all known and potential enemies would be wiped off the face of the earth. I say we go to defcom 1 and inact the doomsday plan [devil]
Link Posted: 5/25/2002 12:25:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: I would not look forward to the possible enviornmental effects of a nuclear war. That being said I feel that will be the direction this takes eventually - just as soon as the moslems get one. I am amazed that Pakistan has not used theirs. The longer we wait to crush the moslems/Arabs the more nukes they can deliver to US soil. That is why I think the first one should have been use 9/12. Now is still the time. A predetermined list of the order of destruction of the moslem world should be made public. Next terror attack in US or Israel and they will know which country we are going to obliterate. Then DO it! The bastards are right about one thing; we ARE weak. Our lack of response to their outrageous acts proves it. If we are no longer wlling to conduct unlimited war, then we have already lost. We should pick an appropriate moslem target and give them 24hrs to unconditionally surrender. Upon their failure to do so, nuke them. Move on to the next enemy country and make the same offer. Continue until moslem problem is solved either through surrender or total destruction of 1.2 billion of the enemy.
View Quote
Condemning millions and millions of people to death sounds real simple on paper but it goes far beyond that. Ever think of the consequences of the nuclear fallout? What about the millions who will die of radiation poisoning in Europe when the wind patterns push the fallout in thier direction? It's not as simple as you think.
Link Posted: 5/25/2002 7:54:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WolfAR15: anybody ever hear of the doomsday plan? it was a coldwar plan that stated that if an enemy attacked with nuclear weapons then not only that enemy but all known and potential enemies would be wiped off the face of the earth.
View Quote
Nice words, but I have yet to see any actions to indicate that we have the courage to do what we say we would do. In fact, the opposite is true. -kill-9
Link Posted: 5/25/2002 8:07:52 AM EDT
JCS is not the boos,W is. When and if he plans to go kick ass he will tell you.
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 4:13:19 PM EDT
There's an excellent article, in today's National Review Online, which discusses the apparent "waffling" on Iraq by the Bush Administration. Here's a quote from the middle of the article. To me, it really sums up everything:
What if reaction in the Islamic world to an American invasion of Iraq starts to destabilize governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan? What if an Islamist attack on the Musharraf government, or even a successful assassination of Musharraf himself, means that we have to go in an stabilize Pakistan and protect or seize its nuclear weapons to keep them out of the hands of al Qaeda? How can we handle destabilization in the Islamic world in the wake of an attack on Iraq if the invasion itself stretches our forces to the limit?
View Quote
Here's the article: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz062002.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 5:15:45 PM EDT
ump45, you're right, that is a good article. It DOES have a glaring hole in it however. That is the nuclear option. It is not difficult for the US to obliterate Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Sadi Arabia and the other morons there who NEED to be taken down!! I for one am looking forward to putting an end to all this nonsense and a few 200megaton bombs delivered to the correct cities are the way to accomplish it!
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 5:36:50 PM EDT
i'm not against invading iraq in principle, i'm all for blowing the sumbitches up, but... imagine how much it would cost the taxpayers. so i'm in favor of trying other stuff first. whatever that is. i think a few nukes would be cheaper... heh. [:D]
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 5:38:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: ump45, you're right, that is a good article. It DOES have a glaring hole in it however. That is the nuclear option. It is not difficult for the US to obliterate Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Sadi Arabia and the other morons there who NEED to be taken down!! I for one am looking forward to putting an end to all this nonsense and a few 200megaton bombs delivered to the correct cities are the way to accomplish it!
View Quote
do we even have any 200 megaton weapons?
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 5:53:33 PM EDT
elvez, I don't know to be honest. Very large without regard to size would do the trick I think!! Think of the trillions we have invested in these things and never got any good out of them. Time to USE THEM! Has been ever since 9/11. Look how much that idiot Arafathead whines when he knows it is about to hit the fan... Don't you think the rest of the vermin would whine and beg to surrender after a few Nukes were delivered where needed - like Mecca?
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 5:56:48 PM EDT
I think the attack will come...in time. First of all we've used a lot of our "smart" weapons of late. Remember "Madeline's war"? That one (supposedly) used most of our cruise missiles. We need to re-stock before commiting to another war. Another considerateion is Saddam himself. He is irrational and insane. If we go in, first of all he knows it's for him, and it's for good. Not like desert storm when it was for the "liberation" of Kuwait. He's (most likely)been producing and stockpiling chem and bio stuff. Now if he's willing to use them on the Kurds for shits and giggles, what do you think he'd do for the sake of his own preservation? I think that's the biggest concern. He'd probably throw all the chem and bio stuff he has at our troops. There would likely be many many casualties and I think W.'s trying to keep all possible options that would avoid that, open. As far as negotiating with other countries, Israel does not have a policy against assassinations do they? Hmmmmm.... Later, R
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 6:12:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By elvez: do we even have any 200 megaton weapons?
View Quote
No, we don't. The largest nuclear weapon ever produced was the Soviet thermonuclear Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs"), which had an estimated yield of 100 megatons (100Mt--equal to one hundred million tons of TNT). The explosive force of this bomb would have been approximately 6,500 times the 15-16 kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima. A scaled-down 50Mt version of Tsar Bomba was tested in September 1961, in the largest man-made explosion to date. The largest bomb ever produced by the United States was the Mk/B 53, also a thermonuclear weapon, which had a yield of 9Mt. Though the United States and the Soviet Union attempted to make larger and larger bombs early on, the "big bomb" race was later abandoned: in the 1960s and 1970s, the superpowers replaced almost all of these very cumbersome weapons with the smaller yet still formidable multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) warheads that tip today's intercontinental ballistic missiles. As our delivery platforms have gotten more accurate, there is no need for the HUGE warheads any longer. (You don't need a 4 megaton bomb when you can fly the thing in through their livingroom window)
Link Posted: 6/21/2002 3:32:53 PM EDT
Thank you Johnny Reno for the info. I just stated a number without any real info behaind it. Sorry about that! Accurate facts are ALWAYS better. So just how big or how many are required to wipe Bhagdad of the planet along with, say 90%+ of all its inhabitants? Should we buy the Russians remaining inventory of monsters to save on delivery costs?
Link Posted: 6/21/2002 4:03:23 PM EDT
Nothing is going to happen that might prevent us sucking oil from the Arab tit.
Link Posted: 6/21/2002 4:11:51 PM EDT
Perhaps our military is spread too thin to attack Iraq...
Link Posted: 6/21/2002 4:40:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kill-9: Ben, your faith in Bush is commendable, but never underestimate the willingness of a politician to reverse course on a dime if he thinks it will help him politically. I, too, would like to think that Bush acts on principle, but the Farm Bill, steel tarrifs, and his general willingness to support traditionally liberal issues sadly betray that notion. -kill-9
View Quote
I agree. I also don't think that Bush supports/actually believe in alot of these things. Unfortunitly he knows that he must pass the things to get re-elected, hense he is selling out his own principlas for 4 more years. Sadlt this is something that almost all pols do. I just hope that in his 2nd term we will see a more conservative Bush....mainly with the 2004 Assult Bill. Hey, I can hope can't I?? Sgtar15
Top Top