Middle east outcome

[SmokinDVM]

Remember what I said about what's NOT in the news? The story broke a while back that Saddam did in fact have weapons of mass death. You can say that they were old, but it still would have killed people, and they were weapons that Saddam was bound by treaty to get rid of. He denied ever having them. About the same time many high ranking officials in his regime were coming out saying that he had WMD's that have been hidden in Syria, and he was in fact developing nuclear capability. There was a huge flurry of retorts by the dems which quickly subsided and the story "went away." But have you noticed that the "Bush lied" line is no longer being used by them? There were also documents found in Zarquawi's safe house that linked saddam to Al Queda, but, again, that story has been ignored by the news media. I can only surmise that they now realize that Bush didn't lie, but they aren't talking about it. Think about it. I am convinced that Iraq had WMD and we will find out where they went eventually.

The middle east has been teaching hatred of America for many, many years. Even our so called allies have been doing it. It's in their school systems and their culture. Are we breeding terrorists? I don't think so. I think perhaps they are coming of age and the war is bringing them out, but I don't think they are converting because we are there. It's been in their culture for years and diplomatic efforts by past administrations failed to discourage it. Terrorist strikes against the US would have happened eventually. 9/11 would have only been the beginning. There have been several major plans to attack us on our own soil that have been thwarted because of our improved ability to gather intelligence, which was definately lacking pre 9/11. The plan to destroy the WTC had been in the making for 2 years or more, long before Bush took office.

I also believe that the war was necessary. At the time Saddam was defying all of the nations of the world, and the UN (another questionable organization) was united in their opinion that he had to put up or shut up. Instead he continued his course and thumbed his nose at the world. At the time of our entry into Iraq, the majority of politicians in this and other countries, including Kerry and Hillary, gave authority to the President to take military action. Then the election came up and they all backpeddled. Hell, Kerry was being laughed at throughout the election with his famous vote for it, then against it. I was there, we all were, but it seems some of us don't remember.

What, exactly, is the plan that the Democrats have? I have yet to hear it, and maybe if I do I can change my mind. Diplomacy? We tried diplomacy for years only to find that terrorist cells were being formed all over the world with the intent of attacking us. Isreal tried the diplomatic route with Lebanon for the past 7 years. In the mean time, the Hezbollah's armed themselves to the teeth and aimed their missiles at Isreal. Then they entered the country, shot up a number of Isreali villages and took 2 soldiers hostage. The Isreali's felt justified in retaliating because of the direct threat on their northern border, and the fact that they were attacked while they were in the middle of diplomatic talks with Lebanon. Now that Hezbollah is getting their ass kicked, Syria and the Hezbolla's are pushing for a cease fire. Isreal isn't going to let that happen and allow Hezbollah to regroup and rearm.

I would love to see the world at peace, but the reality is that it isn't. Until the day comes where we can talk with other cultures on a level field (and that means that tey have to be willing to see our side, too) there will be conflicts, and there will be times when force, as distasteful as it is, will be unavoidable.

You're one of those, that claim WMD's existed in Iraq when we invaded. Where are they? Have you seen, or, as you always want me to do, can you provide, proof? And those "high ranking" Iraqi officials, those whose reports were deemed completely unreliable by the CIA? And the "moved into Syria" line has been so overused, and is so incredibly unsubstantiated, I can't believe anyone would be so gullible. Provide actual proof, which if dumbya and the pubes had would be plastered on fox "news" 24/7, or stop bringing up these fantasy stories.

As far as Isreal is concerned, they do almost as much to keep things stirred up as the terrorists. Attacking known terrorist strongholds is one thing, taking out the Lebanese infrastructure, removing the average persons ability to live in their homes, is unjustified.
Since the Middle East has been preaching hatred, and we haven't been giving them ANY reason to see it any other way, let's just keep doing the same thing. Remember the definition of insanity.

Just like every warmonger, you attack any Country, and the U.N., because they didn't back your boy when it came to attacking Iraq. Saddam was a neutered dictator. He had NO WMD's, hell, he couldn't even move freely in his own country. Sure, he was a dangerous man.
We forced out the remaining U.N. Inspectors, even as they were reporting finding NO VIOLATIONS.

I agree, sometimes force is unavoidable. It shouldn't be used as the first line of "diplomacy" however.


If any of you REALLY wanted to see/hear another viewpoint, they are readily available. You simply have to look. The Democrats proposals won't be seen on fox, so you'll have to go get them.