On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:08:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was
state-sponsored, then attacking that country is our right and our
responsibility.

"Our right and our responsibility?" Interesting words to describe going
to war. It is our responsibility to bring those that attacked us to
justice, if that means attacking a country so be it, but I wouldn't call
it "our right."


It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

It is not partisan. It is trust. This administration led us to war for
false or faulty reasons. Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes. Yes, I want bin
Laden's head. I also want a President who wants it, not one who said, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less
than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.



Sorry, Bub, but no one is going to allow the lying, thieving thug Bush
start another war.

That wasn't the question that Don posed.

"JGS" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran


So how does this effect my engine speed?


Actually, there's a pretty strong correlation. An increase in engine speed,
or an increase in the number of Islamic fundamentalists will cause a rapid
rise in your fuel costs.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:08:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was
state-sponsored, then attacking that country is our right and our
responsibility.

"Our right and our responsibility?" Interesting words to describe going
to war. It is our responsibility to bring those that attacked us to
justice, if that means attacking a country so be it, but I wouldn't call
it "our right."



Pre-emptive attacks are self-defense. And, yes, they're "our right".



It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

It is not partisan. It is trust. This administration led us to war for
false or faulty reasons.

No. The administration gave you a sound reason based on some not-so-sound
intelligence provided to them by our and other country's intelligence
agencies. However, they didn't give you a "false" reason. Besides the WMD
issue, there are 4 or 5 other solid reasons why we should have gone into
Iraq.


Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes.

Whose mistakes?

Yes, I want bin
Laden's head. I also want a President who wants it, not one who said, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

It's not that important in the whole scheme of things. Hell, we might
already have his head for all you and I know. When was the last time a
videotape of him surfaced? He was popping up left and right for about 4
months after 9/11...and then...nothing for the next 30 months. The war on
terror is a lot bigger picture than bin Laden. If we got him 4 months after
9/11, the liberals would be screaming that we accomplished our objective and
that we should bring our troops home.

Our primary objective was to knock the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan,
disrupt the terrorist training camps there, and install a US-friendly gov't
which would allow us to station troops on the Iranian and Pakistani borders.
Mission number one accomplished.

Our second objective was to drive Saddam from power in Iraq, reestablish the
oil flows to the West (so we're not held hostage by only Saudi oil), and
install a US-friendly government which would allow us to establish US bases
on the Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi Arabian borders. Mission number two is
90% accomplished.

Our third objective is to diplomatically pressure Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
to crack down on the Islamic fundamentalists in their respective countries,
and then drive the terrorist-sponsoring leaders from power in Iran and
Syria. Mission number three has just begun. Should Bush get re-elected, I
predict that mission number three will be accomplished within 2-3 years.

By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there. It will take
at least a generation to get rid of the hatred that is being taught in the
madrassas, but it'll be a lot easier with US-friendly governments in place.


The fact that he has the vision (and the balls) to pursue such a plan is
exactly why I'm voting for Bush.

NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly. There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran. If Bush unilaterally invades another country and that country has
not attacked us, he should be arrested. If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in
the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc.
At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly.

Which is exactly why we need to (and will) invade Iran. Either that, or the
Israeli's will do it for us.


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a war
with Iran is virtually assured.

If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

and that country has
not attacked us,

9/11 was an attack on America...and was carried out by a state-sponsored
terrorist organization. In light of the evidence that Iran has been working
with al -Qaeda, any attack by al-Qaeda is an attack by Iran...and casus
belli for war with Iran.


he should be arrested.

By whom?

If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

Thousands upon thousands were killed on 9/11. Millions upon millions will
be killed if we must confront Iran *after* they've become a nuclear power.


I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

And you fit in well with the French.

If Israeli does it, Harry will sing their praises.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in
the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise
support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc.
At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly.

Which is exactly why we need to (and will) invade Iran. Either that, or
the
Israeli's will do it for us.


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran
has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a
war
with Iran is virtually assured.

If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that
matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

and that country has
not attacked us,

9/11 was an attack on America...and was carried out by a state-sponsored
terrorist organization. In light of the evidence that Iran has been
working
with al -Qaeda, any attack by al-Qaeda is an attack by Iran...and casus
belli for war with Iran.


he should be arrested.

By whom?

If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

Thousands upon thousands were killed on 9/11. Millions upon millions will
be killed if we must confront Iran *after* they've become a nuclear power.


I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

And you fit in well with the French.

Of course.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:3aBKc.108793$JR4.85255@attbi_s54...
If Israeli does it, Harry will sing their praises.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left
in
the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise
support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda,
etc.
At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there.

Iran is a hair away from becoming a serious nuclear power, and it has
its nuclear sites dispered all over its countryside. It will have
nuclear weapons shortly.

Which is exactly why we need to (and will) invade Iran. Either that, or
the
Israeli's will do it for us.


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran
has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with
the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a
war
with Iran is virtually assured.

If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that
matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

and that country has
not attacked us,

9/11 was an attack on America...and was carried out by a state-sponsored
terrorist organization. In light of the evidence that Iran has been
working
with al -Qaeda, any attack by al-Qaeda is an attack by Iran...and casus
belli for war with Iran.


he should be arrested.

By whom?

If Bush decides to invade Iran,
thousands upon thousands of our troops will be killed.

Thousands upon thousands were killed on 9/11. Millions upon millions
will
be killed if we must confront Iran *after* they've become a nuclear
power.


I must say, you do fit in well with the chickenhawks.

And you fit in well with the French.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:43:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


No. The administration gave you a sound reason based on some not-so-sound
intelligence provided to them by our and other country's intelligence
agencies. However, they didn't give you a "false" reason. Besides the
WMD issue, there are 4 or 5 other solid reasons why we should have gone
into Iraq.

Please, so now it's all the intelligence agencies fault. Flawed or not,
Bush was the one that took us to war. It wasn't that long ago, that our
intelligence agencies learned that the Soviet Union was falling apart ...
from television. Intelligence is often faulty. This CIC should have
understood that, *before* taking us to war.


Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes.

Whose mistakes?

Where did Truman say the buck stopped?

By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there. It will take
at least a generation to get rid of the hatred that is being taught in the
madrassas, but it'll be a lot easier with US-friendly governments in
place.

"US-friendly governments?" At least you are smart enough not to buy the
BS about democracy breaking out all over. It would be refreshing if this
administration was honest enough to state their real reasons for the Iraq
fiasco. I don't seem to have the same tea leaves you have.


The fact that he has the vision (and the balls) to pursue such a plan is
exactly why I'm voting for Bush.

Yup, it's all about Iraq and that's why I'm voting for anybody but Bush.

NOYB wrote:


There is no way Bush will be allowed to invade
Iran.

If the 9/11 Commission report contains enough damning evidence that Iran has
been working with al-Qaeda (both now and prior to 9/11), coupled with the
fact that they almost have nukes, then a vote by Congress to authorize a war
with Iran is virtually assured.

Sorry, Bub, but the neocon wet dream turned into a nightmare, and absent
an invasion sponsored by the actual government of Iraq, we'll be doing
nothing else in that immediate area.



If Bush unilaterally invades another country

It wasn't unilateral. We had a coalition of the countries that matter...Us,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and several dozen "new Eurpean"
countries. Spain no longer "matters".

Yeah, right. I figured you would fall for that one.